Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Borneo Earless Monitor

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000] RIN 1018-BH99 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Borneo Earless Monitor AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Borneo earless monitor ( Lanthanotus borneensis ), a lizard species from Borneo, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the Borneo earless monitor. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Borneo earless monitor as a threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (“4(d) rule”). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species.

DATES:

Comments must be received by October 14, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES , below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by September 29, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment.”

ns relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the Borneo earless monitor meets the Act's definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are proposing to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ).

What this document does. We propose to list the Borneo earless monitor as a threatened species with a species-specific protective regulation under section 4(d) of the Act.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of 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

servation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, including:

(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; overutilization; disease; predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors;

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and

(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be addressing threats to this species.

(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current status of this species.

(4) Information to assist us with applying or issuing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Borneo earless monitor. In particular, we seek information concerning:

(a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule;

(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule; and

(c) Information on impacts (conservation and economic) associated with implementing the 4(d) rule.

Please include any supplemental information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available

r, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES .

If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.

Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the protective regulations issued under section 4(d) of the Act if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information received

angered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the protective regulations issued under section 4(d) of the Act if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For example, we may expand the prohibitions if we conclude that the protective regulation as a whole, including those additional prohibitions, is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional or different exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of the species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in DATES . Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will schedule a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in addition to the Federal Register . The use of virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

On November 2, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Borneo earless monitor as an endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. )

r. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in addition to the Federal Register . The use of virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

On November 2, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Borneo earless monitor as an endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). On August 17, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88 FR 55991) a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This 90-day finding notice initiated a status review for the Borneo earless monitor.

Peer Review

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Borneo earless monitor. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in listing and recovery actions under the Act ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf ), we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in the Borneo earless monitor SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule

on contained in the Borneo earless monitor SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional references, clarifications, suggestions, and information on the species' reproductive biology, occurrence records, and presence in

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

The Borneo earless monitor ( Lanthanotus borneensis; hereafter “earless monitor”) is a lizard species that is endemic to the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 2) and occurs in all three of Borneo's range states: Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam (Service 2025, p. 3). The species is the only extant member of the monotypic family, Lanthanotidae (Steindachner 1877, p. 160). It is distinguished by a long, brown body covered in six longitudinal rows of keeled scales and several morphological features that make it well adapted for subterranean and semi-aquatic lifestyles, including short limbs, sharp claws, a prehensile tail, small eyes with a translucent lower eyelid, small dorsal nostrils, and no external ear opening (Steindachner 1877, p. 160; McDowell and Bogert 1954, pp. 9-10; Nijman and Stoner 2014, p. 6).

There is limited information available that describes the species' life-history and habitat requirements

for up to 7.5 years (Mendyk et al. 2015, p. 46) and reaches sexual maturity at approximately 2 to 3 years of age (Sprackland pers. comm. 2025). Earless monitors are oviparous, meaning they reproduce by laying eggs outside of their body, and produce between 2 and 8 oval, leathery-shelled eggs that measure approximately 30 millimeters in length (Das 2013, p. 533; Voronin and Kudryavtsev 2019, p. 61). Eggs take approximately 62 to 90 days to hatch when incubated at 27 to 31 degrees Celsius (°C) (80.6 to 87.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Shirawa and Bacchini 2015, p. 18; Voronin and Kudryavtsev 2019, p. 61; Das and Auliya 2021, p. 4; Sprackland pers. comm. 2025). The total time from fertilization to hatching can exceed six months (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 5).

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the earless monitor is presented in the SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2025, pp. 2-8).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.

The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

hic events ( e.g., droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment ( e.g., climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in (and decrease with decreases in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout each of these stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.

The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0110 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

Based on the species' biology described above and in the SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2025, pp

ry of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

Based on the species' biology described above and in the SSA report (version 1.0; Service 2025, pp. 2-8), the earless monitor requires clear flowing freshwater streams with adequate invertebrate food resources; intact, connected lowland forest habitats with a closed canopy; and sufficient conspecific individuals to reproduce with and sustain a population. Due to the limited data available, our assessment of species-level needs is developed further based on general principles as they apply to lizard biology.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

Earless monitors are protected in all three of their range states (Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam). It is illegal to remove the species from the wild without a permit. “Wild” includes specimens taken from the wild and held in captivity, specimens born in captivity where the parents mated in the wild (such as from fertilized eggs or gravid females collected from the wild), and any specimens for which there is insufficient evidence that the specimen meets the requirements for bred in captivity under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Resolution 10.16 (Rev. CoP19). However, with a permit, it is legal to export individuals bred in captivity, identified using CITES source code C (50 CFR part 23; Service 2025, pp. 9-10). Only one registered captive-breeding facility in Indonesia is permitted to legally harvest earless monitors from the wild to be used as breeding stock

l applicable requirements under U.S. CITES implementing regulations (50 CFR part 23), wildlife import/export requirements (50 CFR part 14), and general permitting requirements (50 CFR part 13).

While there are several protected areas within northwestern Borneo, the majority protect high-elevation areas (above 300 m (984 ft)) where earless monitors have not been observed (Service 2025, pp. 10-11). Illegal logging also occurs within many of the protected areas that overlap the earless monitor's known range (Service 2025, p. 12), so it is unlikely that these areas offer the species reliable protection.

Threats

Collection for International Pet Trade

Rare species with unique taxonomic status are more valuable on the international pet market (Altherr and Lameter 2020, p. 6), and consequently, there is a significant demand for earless monitors in international trade (Arida et al. 2018, p. 83). Shortly after earless monitors were first discovered in Indonesia, individuals were offered for sale online for as much as $20,000 (Sprackland pers. comm. 2025). coldbloodedshop.com , accessed March 12, 2025). The financial reward of successfully smuggling earless monitors out of Borneo likely outweighs the risk of getting caught (Nijman and Stoner 2014, p. 12), incentivizing the illegal smuggling of wild-caught earless monitors into the international market.

While earless monitors have legal protection in all three of their range states (see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above), wildlife conservation laws in Indonesia are rarely enforced (Shepherd et al. 2004, as cited in Eaton et al. 2015, p. 8), and illegal trade of protected species often goes unpunished (Natusch and Lyons 2012, p. 2902). Wildlife traffickers use a variety of methods to illegally smuggle earless monitors out of Borneo, such as deliberately concealing them on their bodies, or falsifying the contents of luggage or international shipments (Baderan et al. 2023, p. 156)

nvolved in private transactions or that died along the trade route.

Deforestation

Primary forests in Borneo are quickly declining due to intensive logging, fire, and conversion to agricultural plantations (Gaveau et al. 2014, p. 1). Between 1973 and 2015, approximately 50 percent of the forests in Borneo were cut down and converted to oil palm and other industries (Gaveau et al. 2016, pp. 3-4). All three of the earless monitor's range states experienced major deforestation during this 42-year period: Kalimantan, Indonesia; Sarawak, Malaysia; and Brunei Darussalam lost 35, 26, and 10 percent of their forest area, respectively (Gaveau et al. 2016, pp. 3-4). While rates of forest loss have slowed in the past decade, Borneo has continued to lose an annual average of 248,000 hectares of primary forest since 2015 (Service 2025, p. 16). If similar historical deforestation trends continue, only approximately 33 percent of Borneo's tropical forests are projected to remain by 2050 (Trancoso et al. 2022, pp. 6-7), the majority of which will occur in high-elevation areas (above 300 m (984 ft)) that the earless monitor likely does not occupy (Trancoso et al. 2022, p. 7). While the earless monitor's range may be wider than what is currently known (Das pers. comm. 2019, as cited in Das and Auliya 2021, p. 2; Sprackland pers. comm. 2025), any potentially undiscovered subpopulations are likely vulnerable to deforestation because it is a pervasive threat throughout Borneo's low-elevation areas (below 300 m (984 ft)) (Gaveau et al. 2014, p. 5; Service 2025, pp. 16-19), and it directly diminishes many specific habitat features upon which earless monitors are dependent.

Earless monitors rely on low-elevation tropical rainforests with a closed canopy and access to freshwater streams (see Background, above). Extensive canopy cover contributes to high rates of evapotranspiration that help maintain a lower air temperature (Bonan 2008, pp. 1444-1445). Deforestation reduces canopy cover (Gorte and Sheikh 2010, p

tat features upon which earless monitors are dependent.

Earless monitors rely on low-elevation tropical rainforests with a closed canopy and access to freshwater streams (see Background, above). Extensive canopy cover contributes to high rates of evapotranspiration that help maintain a lower air temperature (Bonan 2008, pp. 1444-1445). Deforestation reduces canopy cover (Gorte and Sheikh 2010, p. 3), which results in an average temperature increase of 1.7 degrees Celsius (°C) (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), and an increased frequency of extreme temperatures (>31 °C (87.8 °F)) in deforested areas (McAlpine et al. 2018, p. 7). Many reptile species likely cannot withstand an average temperature increase of 2 °C (3.6 °F) (Johnson 2012, p. 71), and because fossorial lizards are especially vulnerable to deforestation (Theisinger and Ratinarivo 2015, p. 278), temperature increases alone may render deforested areas unsuitable for earless monitors. Deforestation also reduces daily precipitation (McAlpine et al. 2018, pp. 5-7) and contributes to stream channel narrowing, which diminishes the pollution processing capabilities of stream habitats (Sweeney et al. 2004, p. 14134). In addition, forests that are converted to oil palm plantations are often cleared with slash-and-burn agriculture (Dhandapani and Evers 2020, p. 4), a method that causes riparian areas to quickly lose tree root systems that stabilize stream banks and prevent erosion (Iwata et al. 2003, pp. 468-471). Erosion directly increases the amount of fine substrate in the stream bed, which diminishes abundance and biodiversity of their benthic assemblages ( i.e., groups of organisms that live on the bottom sediments of a water body; Iwata et al. 2003, pp. 468-470). These conditions likely reduce food availability for earless monitors because they feed on invertebrates that are present in benthic assemblages, such as worms and crustaceans (see Background, above)

eah et al. 2023, p. 510). Collectively, these published encounters provide evidence that earless monitors are capable of persisting both within and adjacent to human-modified habitats. However, the edge effects ( e.g., increased temperature, increased wind exposure, reduced moisture, etc.) resulting from oil palm establishment extend over 300 m (984 ft) into adjacent forests (Nunes et al. 2021, pp. 5-6), and because over 60 percent of the known earless monitor subpopulations that were historically found near agricultural areas within coastal Sarawak are now considered extirpated (Das and Auliya 2021, pp. 2-4), it is probable that earless monitors were simply persisting near these human-modified areas, and the species is not capable of sustaining populations adjacent to these areas over the long-term.

Earless monitors persisting in diminished habitats adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance are vulnerable to the increased risk of fire associated with these habitats. Deforestation and the subsequent conversion of cleared forest to oil palm plantations increase fire risk (Trancoso et al. 2022, p. 13; Dhandapani and Evers 2020, pp. 3-4), and Borneo has recently experienced an increase in forest fires as a consequence of deforestation (Gaveau et al. 2018, p. 3). Deforestation increases temperature extremes (Trancoso et al. 2022, p. 2; McAlpine et al. 2018, p. 7), and the subsequent conversion of deforested areas to oil palm plantations exacerbates local fire risk because oil palms use more water, lowering the water table and leaving behind highly flammable fuel (Dhandapani and Evers 2020, pp. 3-4). Even selective logging—a practice that is pervasive throughout much of the earless monitor's known range (Service 2025, p. 19)—increases fire risk (Langner et al. 2007, p. 2338)

temperatures.

Higher temperatures caused by both climate change and deforestation are also expected to exacerbate fire risk in Borneo (Davies-Barnard et al. 2023, p. 8), further contributing to the loss of earless monitor habitat. Climate change is also expected to increase the frequency of extreme rainfall and winds from tropical cyclones in Southeast Asia (Christensen et al. 2007, pp. 885-887). Extreme rainfall has previously caused mass mortality events in earless monitors (Harrisson 1963, pp. 408), so an increase in frequency of extreme weather events is likely to increase the risk of extirpation of earless monitor subpopulations.

Cumulative Effects

We note that by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Current Condition

We describe the current condition of the earless monitor based on the needs of the species and their relation to resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Species with high resiliency are able to withstand environmental, demographic, and genetic stochasticity by having self-sustaining ( i.e., large, high fecundity), connected populations occupying suitable habitat across spatial heterogenous conditions. Resiliency of the earless monitor is primarily influenced by the health of the subpopulations and the extent and connectivity of suitable habitat

n. Species with high resiliency are able to withstand environmental, demographic, and genetic stochasticity by having self-sustaining ( i.e., large, high fecundity), connected populations occupying suitable habitat across spatial heterogenous conditions. Resiliency of the earless monitor is primarily influenced by the health of the subpopulations and the extent and connectivity of suitable habitat. While no numerical population data is available to quantitatively assess the status and trends of earless monitors (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 4), we are able to assess the resiliency of the species based on a multitude of factors.

Earless monitors are known from approximately 15 confirmed historical localities, only 5 of which are considered extant (Das and Auliya 2021, pp. 1-2). Unconfirmed reports suggest additional extralimital subpopulations may exist (Das pers. comm. 2019, as cited in Das and Auliya 2021, p. 2; Sprackland pers. comm. 2025). Extant earless monitor subpopulations are likely vulnerable to habitat loss resulting from deforestation, overcollection and illegal trade, and climate change.

Over the past 50 years, the majority of forests in coastal Sarawak have been cleared and subsequently converted to oil palm plantations (Service 2025, p. 17), resulting in the extirpation of earless monitors from these areas (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 2). The cumulative effects of deforestation ( e.g., loss of canopy cover, temperature increases, stream narrowing, sediment alterations, increase in fire risk; see Threats, above) render the remaining habitat largely unsuitable for earless monitors, and deforestation is likely to blame for the extirpation of the species from coastal Sarawak. It is unknown the specific degree of human disturbance earless monitors are capable of tolerating, and it is probable that subpopulations are simply persisting within and adjacent to agricultural areas, rather than successfully thriving there

the remaining habitat largely unsuitable for earless monitors, and deforestation is likely to blame for the extirpation of the species from coastal Sarawak. It is unknown the specific degree of human disturbance earless monitors are capable of tolerating, and it is probable that subpopulations are simply persisting within and adjacent to agricultural areas, rather than successfully thriving there. At a minimum, stream habitats adjacent to deforested areas are hotter, contaminated by insecticides, have diminished pollution processing capabilities, and contain fewer potential food resources (see Threats, above). Yet, some earless monitor encounters in the 21st century have occurred in forests adjacent to agricultural areas ( e.g., Yaap et al. 2012, pp. 3069-3070; Langner 2017, p. 3), and more research is needed to determine if these individuals are successfully reproducing or are simply persisting as a sink population. Earless monitors are also threatened by overcollection and illegal trade for the pet trade, and subpopulations that are targeted by wildlife traffickers cannot adequately replace themselves. Disproportionate exploitation is probable to lead to earless monitors becoming a rarer and more appealing target for wildlife traffickers and may ultimately lead to the extirpation of targeted subpopulations (Janssen and Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2). Overharvesting for the pet trade has caused the extirpation of other reptile subpopulations in the past (Stuart et al. 2006, p. 1137), and earless monitor subpopulations that are targeted by wildlife traffickers are similarly vulnerable. Considering these factors, the earless monitor has low resiliency to adapt to and withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity.

Species with high redundancy are less prone to the negative effects of random, catastrophic, local events because they have many populations that are geographically dispersed over a wide area

pulations may exist that would contribute to redundancy to some degree.

Representation is improved in species with high genetic variability, or which inhabit a wide range of ecological settings. Both of these characteristics facilitate adaptation to future environmental changes, whether natural or anthropogenic. On the other hand, representation is reduced in the absence of these characteristics. Earless monitors do not occupy a wide range of ecological settings and are restricted to flat tropical forests at low elevations with access to freshwater streams (see Background, above). There is no available information about the genetic diversity within or between any earless monitor subpopulations, and there is no information on the degree to which the species exhibits behavioral plasticity. Reptiles tend to have a low dispersal ability (Root and Schneider 2002, pp. 20-21), and if the earless monitor's dispersal ability is also low, then there is likely limited gene flow between the remaining extant earless monitor subpopulations. Earless monitors likely have low representation because they are dependent on a specific habitat type, have a limited dispersal ability, and have a small number of known subpopulations that are not dispersed over a wide area (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 1).

Future Condition

Based on our assessment, we concluded that the primary potential threats to the earless monitor are (1) overcollection and illegal trade for the pet trade and (2) habitat loss resulting from deforestation and increasing temperatures, both of which are exacerbated by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the high uncertainty associated with the earless monitor's abundance, geographic range, adaptive capacity, and ability to tolerate anthropogenic disturbance, the foreseeable future by which we can assess the threats to this species—and its response to those threats—is relatively short (10 to 20 years)

es, both of which are exacerbated by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Because of the high uncertainty associated with the earless monitor's abundance, geographic range, adaptive capacity, and ability to tolerate anthropogenic disturbance, the foreseeable future by which we can assess the threats to this species—and its response to those threats—is relatively short (10 to 20 years).

We expect the collection and illegal trade of earless monitors for the pet trade to continue into the future. As long as earless monitors retain a high market value in the pet trade, they will continue to be targeted by wildlife traffickers. A species' value in the pet trade is often driven by many traits earless monitors possess, such as unique taxonomic status and rarity in the market (Altherr and Lameter 2020, p. 6). These traits increase the potential for overcollection and illegal trade of wild earless monitors from wild populations, making the species even more rare and more valuable in the pet trade. While legitimate captive-breeding efforts may open another avenue for earless monitors to enter the pet trade without harming wild populations, there is limited evidence for these efforts in range states. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that future harvesting pressure on earless monitors will, at a minimum, continue at the same level as the current condition, and may increase until legitimately bred in captivity earless monitors help alleviate the demand for wild-caught individuals.

The best available scientific and commercial data suggests that if the current rates of deforestation continue, the majority of Borneo's low-elevation areas will be deforested by 2050 (Trancoso et al. 2022, pp. 6-7), and most of the remaining forests will occur in high-elevation areas that earless monitors do not occupy. Because the remaining known extant earless monitor subpopulations occupy a narrow range, this amount of forest loss would equate to a significant loss of habitat for the species

n continue, the majority of Borneo's low-elevation areas will be deforested by 2050 (Trancoso et al. 2022, pp. 6-7), and most of the remaining forests will occur in high-elevation areas that earless monitors do not occupy. Because the remaining known extant earless monitor subpopulations occupy a narrow range, this amount of forest loss would equate to a significant loss of habitat for the species. Furthermore, climate change is projected to increase global temperatures by at least 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above pre-industrial levels by 2040 (Lee et al. 2023, p. 12), and on Borneo, by 3.5 °C (6.3 °F) in elevations below 500 m by the end of this century (Davies-Barnard et al. 2023, p. 4). Among reptiles, fossorial lizards such as the earless monitor are particularly susceptible to temperature increases (Theisinger and Ratinarivo 2015, p. 278). Given that an increase of 2 °C (3.6 °F) will render much of Borneo's lowlands climatically unsuitable for many native reptile species (Johnson 2012, p. 71). it is likely that earless monitors will be unable to withstand the temperature increases projected within the foreseeable future.

In summary, earless monitors, will continue to face the threats of habitat loss and overcollection and illegal trade for the pet trade, and these threats may increase in the future. Deforestation was a contributing factor in the extirpation of over 60 percent of the historical earless monitor subpopulations (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 1), and it is expected to continue to remove suitable forest habitat, diminish the quality of the remaining forest habitat, increase fire risk, and reduce the connectivity between the remaining known extant earless monitor subpopulations and other unconfirmed subpopulations, affecting viability within the foreseeable future (see Threats, above)

rless monitor subpopulations (Das and Auliya 2021, p. 1), and it is expected to continue to remove suitable forest habitat, diminish the quality of the remaining forest habitat, increase fire risk, and reduce the connectivity between the remaining known extant earless monitor subpopulations and other unconfirmed subpopulations, affecting viability within the foreseeable future (see Threats, above). In addition, should collection pressure from wildlife traffickers continue or potentially increase as anticipated in the future, overexploitation may lead to the extirpation of targeted subpopulations (Janssen and Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2). Although the earless monitor currently maintains subpopulations, including in disturbed areas, and reportedly occupies additional areas within Borneo, the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation are likely to decrease within the foreseeable future as they continue to be affected by threats of deforestation and overcollection and illegal trade.

Determination of Borneo Earless Monitor's Status

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

res for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following

Status Throughout All of Its Range

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determined that ongoing deforestation and overcollection and illegal trade for the international pet trade will likely reduce the viability of the earless monitor within the foreseeable future.

The complete range of the earless monitor is unknown, due in part to the species' cryptic nature and limited number of occurrence records (see Background, above). In the past decade, demand from the international pet trade has driven a renewed effort to locate the species, and because at least 695 individuals have entered the pet trade since 2012 (see Threats, above), the existence of additional subpopulations beyond those that are known is plausible. However, the threat of habitat loss from deforestation and land use change is so pervasive throughout the lowlands of Borneo that any potentially undiscovered subpopulations are likely vulnerable to these threats. The earless monitor's ability to sustain populations long-term in forested habitats adjacent to anthropogenically disturbed areas is likely limited because the majority of historical subpopulations that have occupied similar areas are presumed to be extirpated

under the Act

Section 7 of the Act, titled “Interagency Cooperation,” mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.

With respect to the earless monitor, no known actions require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory definition of “action” at 50 CFR 402.02, which clarifies that it applies to activities or programs carried out “in the United States or upon the high seas,” the earless monitor is unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations because the entire life cycle of the species occurs in terrestrial areas outside of the United States and the species is unlikely to be affected by Federal actions

oth hold a registration for the taxon concerned. The CBW program is available for species having a natural geographic distribution not including any part of the United States and other species that the Service Director has determined to be eligible by regulation. The individual specimens must have been born in captivity in the United States.

The provisions in section 9(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)(1)) provide a limited exemption from certain otherwise prohibited activities regarding wildlife specimens held in captivity or in a controlled environment on the pre-Act date (for species first listed after the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, the pre-Act date is the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final regulation adding such species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the first time), provided that such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity (commonly referred to as “pre-Act” specimens) (96 Stat. 1426-27 (1982); H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 35 (1982) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 97-418, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 24-25 (1982)). Specifically, section 9(b)(1) of the Act states that the prohibitions of sections 9(a)(1)(A) and 9(a)(1)(G) shall not apply to any fish or wildlife which was held in captivity or in a controlled environment on (A) December 28, 1973, or (B) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of a final regulation adding such fish or wildlife to any list

Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there is a limited exemption from the prohibitions associated with: (1) import into, or export from, the United States of any endangered wildlife, or (2) violation of regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened wildlife

cember 28, 1973, or (B) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of a final regulation adding such fish or wildlife to any list

Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there is a limited exemption from the prohibitions associated with: (1) import into, or export from, the United States of any endangered wildlife, or (2) violation of regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened wildlife. Other prohibitions of section 9—including those at section 9(a)(1)(B)-(F) regarding take of endangered wildlife, possession and other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, interstate or foreign commerce in endangered wildlife, and sale or offer for sale of endangered wildlife—continue to apply to activities with qualifying endangered pre-Act wildlife specimens. Specimens born after the pre-Act date and specimens taken from the wild after the pre-Act date do not qualify as “pre-Act” wildlife under the text of section 9(b)(1) of the Act. If a person engages in any commercial activity with a pre-Act specimen on or after the pre-Act date, the wildlife would immediately cease to qualify as pre-Act wildlife and become subject to the relevant prohibitions because it has been held or used in the course of a commercial activity.

II. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

As discussed above under Available Conservation Measures, section 9(a) of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations that are “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species” (referred to as “4(d) rules”). Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as they deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened species

section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to him [or her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He [or she] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, or he [or she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

Under our 4(d) authorities, we put in place protections intended to both prevent a threatened species from becoming an endangered species and to promote its recovery. 4(d) rules explain what is prohibited for a threatened species, thus making the activity unlawful without a permit or authorization under the Act unless otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule and may also include affirmative requirements. Section 4(d) rules are therefore directly related to what actions may require permits in the future. As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, permits may be issued for purposes described in our threatened species permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.72, including for recovery actions. We may also except otherwise prohibited activities through a 4(d) rule itself, in which case threatened species permits would not be required for those activities.

The provisions of this species' proposed protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of the earless monitor

17.32 and 17.72, including for recovery actions. We may also except otherwise prohibited activities through a 4(d) rule itself, in which case threatened species permits would not be required for those activities.

The provisions of this species' proposed protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of the earless monitor. The proposed protective regulations would apply only if and when we make final the listing of the earless monitor as a threatened species. The proposed protective regulations would promote conservation of the earless monitor by ensuring that activities undertaken with this species by any person under the jurisdiction of the United States are also supportive of the conservation efforts undertaken for the species in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam, as well as under the CITES Appendix-II listing.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the earless monitor's conservation needs. As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the earless monitor is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and overcollection and illegal trade for the pet trade. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species ( In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)))

cretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species ( In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Our necessary and advisable determination includes consideration of conservation and economic impacts ( Kansas Natural Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. No. 23CV-00159-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. 2025). We explain below why we find that, if finalized, the prohibitions and exceptions in this proposed rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the earless monitor.

The protective regulations we are proposing for the earless monitor incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing

As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, overcollection and illegal trade for pet trade is affecting the status of the earless monitor; therefore, regulating activities associated with potential removal of earless monitors from the wild and preventing illegal trade is essential for their conservation. The section 9(a)(1) prohibitions related to trade and commerce through our application of 50 CFR 17.21(b), (e), and (f) will help regulate these activities. As discussed in Background, it is illegal to remove the species from the wild without a permit; however, it is legal to export individuals bred in captivity. We are aware of one company that imports earless monitors into the United States and at least two companies with earless monitors in captivity in the United States that engage in interstate commerce with the species

de those set forth in 50 CFR 17.21(c)(2)-(c)(4), (d)(2), and 50 CFR 17.31(c). These exceptions include allowing any person to take earless monitors in defense of their own life or the lives of others and for law enforcement to possess and conduct other acts with illegally taken earless monitors.

We also propose certain exceptions related to import, export, trade, and commerce of earless monitors. While we have determined overcollection and illegal trade are threats to the species, we propose that legal trade and commerce of bred in captivity specimens that meet the requirements of CITES (source code C, 50 CFR part 23), including those that are legally bred in captivity in the United States, can provide a sustainable use alternative to unsustainable or illegal sourcing of wild specimens and breeding stock. We have no information that suggests current legal interstate commerce activities with legally sourced earless monitors are associated with threats to the species or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species. Furthermore, allowing interstate commerce with legally sourced earless monitors is expected to provide a conservation benefit to the species because the demands of the pet trade can be supplied with bred in captivity specimens sourced from within the United States, which will reduce collection pressure on wild populations in its range states. Therefore, we are proposing exceptions to prohibitions and threatened species permitting requirements for import, export, and interstate and foreign commerce to facilitate legal trade in bred in captivity specimens (source code C) that are in accordance with other applicable regulations, including 50 CFR part 23 regulations implementing CITES. Additionally, under 50 CFR 17.8, import permits are exempted for threatened wildlife species included in Appendix II of CITES so long as certain requirements are met

t, export, and interstate and foreign commerce to facilitate legal trade in bred in captivity specimens (source code C) that are in accordance with other applicable regulations, including 50 CFR part 23 regulations implementing CITES. Additionally, under 50 CFR 17.8, import permits are exempted for threatened wildlife species included in Appendix II of CITES so long as certain requirements are met. The requirements at 50 CFR 17.8 for exemption from a threatened species import permit include that the specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce or imported in the course of a commercial activity; the species is included in Appendix II of CITES; the specimen is imported under a valid CITES document and subsequently used in accordance with CITES regulations (50 CFR part 23); at the time of import, the importer must provide to the Service documentation that shows the specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; and that all applicable requirements of 50 CFR part 14 have been satisfied.

In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the NFMS, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; (ii) dispose of a dead specimen; (iii) salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner. Such taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area

ith RFA through consideration of conservation and economic impacts when promulgating 4(d) rules.

According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities.

As discussed above, in terms of potential economic impacts, there is minimal current legal import, export, trade, or commerce of earless monitor that would be affected by the 4(d) rule. We propose exceptions that would continue to allow import, export, trade, or commerce with legally obtained earless monitors without additional threatened species permits, as described above

y regulated entities.

As discussed above, in terms of potential economic impacts, there is minimal current legal import, export, trade, or commerce of earless monitor that would be affected by the 4(d) rule. We propose exceptions that would continue to allow import, export, trade, or commerce with legally obtained earless monitors without additional threatened species permits, as described above. Possession of a specimen is not itself a violation and does not require a permit as long as there is not an unauthorized otherwise-prohibited activity, such as take. Additionally, the definition of “harass” in 50 CFR 17.3, when applied to captive wildlife, does not include the following practices, procedures, and provisions if they are “generally accepted” and “not likely to result in injury to the wildlife” at issue: animal husbandry practices that meet or exceed the minimum standards for facilities and care under the Animal Welfare Act; breeding procedures; or

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. )

Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position ( e.g., Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule))

es:

(i) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.

(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you may:

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under § 17.32.

(ii) Import, export, sell or offer for sale in foreign commerce, or deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity a live Borneo earless monitor, provided the specimen is bred in captivity (see 50 CFR 23.24, source code “C”) and the requirements in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met.

(iii) Sell or offer for sale in interstate commerce, or deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity a live Borneo earless monitor, provided the specimen was legally imported or bred in captivity in the United States (see 50 CFR 23.24, source code “C”) and the requirements in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 have been met.

(iv) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).

(v) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife.

(vi) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.

(vii) Conduct activities as authorized by a captive-bred wildlife registration under § 17.21(g) for endangered wildlife.

Justin Shirley, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 2025-15491 Filed 8-13-25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P