# 90 FR 46371: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Eleven Species Treated as Listed Due to Similarity of Appearance

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-18728

## Section

- **Citation:** 90 FR 46371
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Eleven Species Treated as Listed Due to Similarity of Appearance
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 90 / 90 FR 46371

## Text

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.” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment. Comments must be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the date specified in DATES .
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. Comments and materials we receive will be posted and available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: References and a document summarizing this proposed rule are available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Tirpak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification; telephone 703-358-2163; john_tirpak@fws.gov . Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications 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-2025-0176 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible
concerning treatment of the following species addressed in this proposed rulemaking (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, southern DPS of bog turtle, and Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise). In particular, we seek information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section 9(a) prohibitions in the 4(e) regulations; and
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(e) regulations.
(3) Potential impacts on the Miami blue butterfly, Florida panther, and pallid sturgeon from proposed removal of 4(e) treatment for the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, nickerbean blue butterfly, puma, and shovelnose sturgeon.
(4) Potential impacts on regulated entities from the proposed rulemaking.
(5) Potential impacts on the Pearl River map turtle, bog turtle (northern DPS), and Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS) from proposed amendment of 4(e) treatment for the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, bog turtle (southern DPS), and desert tortoise (Sonoran population).
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. Determinations will be made in accordance with the criteria in section 4(e) of the Act.
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
In addition, we may change the prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the regulations issued or applied under section 4(e) of the Act if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. 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.
Background
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (“Act” or “ESA”; 16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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” at 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a “threatened species” at 16 U.S.C. 1532(20) as a species that is 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 any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors in section 4(a):
(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.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence
(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.
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.
Section 2 of the Act states that the purposes of the Act include providing a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, developing a program for the conservation of listed species, and achieving the purposes of certain treaties and conventions (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ultimate goal of conservation efforts is the recovery of listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. The Act provides multiple tools to conserve species that warrant protection under section 4(a) and have been added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12). These include (among other protections) designation of critical habitat, recovery planning under section 4(f), protective regulations for threatened species under section 4(d), and Federal agency requirements to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat under section 7(a)(2).
One of these tools, detailed in section 4(e) of the Act, provides the Service with the discretion to treat species as endangered species or threatened species when they do not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)) as a result of the factors listed in section 4(a)
d regulations that treat 17 entities as listed species under section 4(e) of the Act. These entities are listed as E (S/A) (endangered based on similarity of appearance to an existing listed species) or T (S/A) (threatened based on similarity of appearance to an existing listed species) at 50 CFR 17.11. After reviewing these regulations, we propose to remove or revise this treatment for 11 species.
Proposed Regulatory Revisions
We propose to remove treatment as listed species for the following five unlisted species: cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, nickerbean blue butterfly, puma, and shovelnose sturgeon. We also propose to revise regulations under section 4(e) of the Act for the following six unlisted species that are treated as listed species: Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, southern DPS of bog turtle, and Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise. See table 1, below, for a summary of the species and proposed actions discussed in this document.
Table 1—Species Treated as Listed Based on Similarity of Appearance Under Section 4 (e) of the Act and Proposed Actions 4(a) Listed species common name 4(e) Species common name Listing citations and applicable rules Proposed action Florida panther Puma (=mountain lion) 56 FR 40265, 8/14/1991; 50 CFR 17.40(h) Remove entry at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and remove 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.40(h). Miami blue butterfly Cassius blue butterfly, Ceraunus blue butterfly, Nickerbean blue butterfly 77 FR 20948, 4/6/2012; 50 CFR 17.47(a) Remove entry at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and remove 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.47(a). Pallid sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeon 75 FR 53598, 9/1/2010; 50 CFR 17.44(aa) Remove entry at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and remove 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.44(aa). Bog turtle (northern DPS) Bog turtle (southern DPS) 62 FR 59605, 11/4/1997; 50 CFR 17.42(f) Revise 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.42(f)
R 20948, 4/6/2012; 50 CFR 17.47(a) Remove entry at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and remove 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.47(a). Pallid sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeon 75 FR 53598, 9/1/2010; 50 CFR 17.44(aa) Remove entry at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and remove 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.44(aa). Bog turtle (northern DPS) Bog turtle (southern DPS) 62 FR 59605, 11/4/1997; 50 CFR 17.42(f) Revise 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.42(f). Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS) Desert tortoise (Sonoran DPS) 55 FR 12178, 4/2/1990; 50 CFR 17.42(e) Revise 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.42(e). Pearl River map turtle Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle 89 FR 57206, 7/12/2024; 50 CFR 17.42(n) Revise 4(e) treatment at 50 CFR 17.42(n). Florida Panther and Puma
The Florida panther was first listed as an endangered species under the precursor to the Act, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa(c); 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) and has continued to be protected as an endangered species under the Act. Because unlisted species of cougars (or pumas) periodically occur in Florida, either as escapees from captivity or as deliberate releases or wild individuals from populations outside of Florida, there is a risk that Florida panthers will be killed under the assumption or justification that they are escaped cougars or other wild big cats. Therefore, we finalized a rule on August 14, 1991 (56 FR 40265), treating all other free-living Felis concolor ( i.e., puma, mountain lion) in Florida (hereafter referred to as “puma” or “mountain lion”) as a threatened species under section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to the Florida panther. We also issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h) providing the prohibitions and exception for activities with regard to the puma.
The regulations provide that except as otherwise allowed, no person shall take any free-living mountain lion ( Felis concolor ) in Florida
a” or “mountain lion”) as a threatened species under section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to the Florida panther. We also issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h) providing the prohibitions and exception for activities with regard to the puma.
The regulations provide that except as otherwise allowed, no person shall take any free-living mountain lion ( Felis concolor ) in Florida. Exceptions allow for a mountain lion to be taken in this area under a valid threatened species permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 17.52 or when an employee or designated agent of the Service or the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission takes a mountain lion for taxonomic identification or other reasons consistent with the conservation of the endangered Florida panther ( Felis concolor coryi ). When it has been established by the Service, in consultation with the State, that an animal in question is not a Florida panther or an eastern cougar ( Felis concolor couguar ), such animals may be removed from the wild. The disposition of animals so taken shall be at the discretion of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, with the concurrence of the Service. Take for reasons of human safety is allowed and must be reported in writing to the Service's Office of Law Enforcement. The specimen may only be retained, disposed of, or salvaged in accordance with directions from the Service.
According to our 2009 status review, habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and associated human disturbance are the greatest threats to panther survival and among the greatest threats to its recovery (Service 2009, p. 12).
We propose to remove section 4(e) similarity of appearance treatment for puma as a threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h)
ur 2009 status review, habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and associated human disturbance are the greatest threats to panther survival and among the greatest threats to its recovery (Service 2009, p. 12).
We propose to remove section 4(e) similarity of appearance treatment for puma as a threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h). The intention of the 4(e) regulations for puma are largely duplicative with other
The Florida panther was first declared to be an endangered species by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC), the predecessor agency of the current Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), in 1958, at which time State protections were afforded to the species. FWC currently lists the Florida panther as a federally designated Endangered Species (68A-27.003, Florida Administrative Code). Federally designated Endangered and Threatened Species are defined by the State of Florida as “species of fish or wild animal life, subspecies or isolated populations of species or subspecies, whether vertebrate or invertebrate, that are native to Florida and classified as Endangered and Threatened under Commission rule by virtue of designation by the United States Departments of Interior or Commerce as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1532 et seq. and rules thereto[. . .]” (68A-27.001(2) Florida Administrative Code).
Florida's regulations provide that “no person shall take, possess, or sell any of the endangered or threatened species included in this subsection, or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as allowed by specific federal permit or authorization” (68A-27.003(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code). Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (68A-27.003(4) Florida Administrative Code, Title XXVII, section 379.101)
apply to the progeny of any such butterfly; (2) Any violation of State law will also be a violation of the Act; (3) Incidental take, that is, take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, will not apply to these species; and (4) Collection of these species is prohibited in coastal counties south of Interstate 4 and extending to the boundaries of the State of Florida at the endpoints of Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona Beach. Specifically, such activities are prohibited in the following counties: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, and Volusia.
We propose to remove section 4(e) similarity of appearance treatment for cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly as threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.47(a). According to our most recent status review, the threat of collection of Miami blue butterflies has likely been reduced, in part due to the remote locations of Miami blue butterfly and reduction in occupied areas (Service 2024, p. 5).
The Miami blue butterfly is listed as a federally designated endangered species under Florida law (68A-27.003, Florida Administrative Code). Under Florida law, no person shall take, possess, or sell endangered species, or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as allowed by specific Federal or State permit or authorization. No person shall intentionally kill, attempt to kill or wound any species that is both designated in Rule 68A-27.003 of the Florida Administrative Code and designated in 50 CFR 17.11 as endangered. This proposal would not alter any protections under State or Federal law relating to activities with the Miami blue butterfly. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities with the Miami blue butterfly without a permit is subject to law enforcement
ignated in Rule 68A-27.003 of the Florida Administrative Code and designated in 50 CFR 17.11 as endangered. This proposal would not alter any protections under State or Federal law relating to activities with the Miami blue butterfly. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities with the Miami blue butterfly without a permit is subject to law enforcement.
Cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly are also listed due to similarity of appearance to Miami blue butterfly under Florida law (68A-27.003). Under Florida law, incidental take, that is, take that results from, but is not a purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity does not apply to cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly. Florida law also prohibits collection of the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly in the coastal counties south of Interstate 4 and extending to the boundaries of the State of Florida at endpoints of Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona Beach. Specifically, such activities are prohibited in the following counties: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De Soto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, and Volusia.
We continue to find that the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly closely resemble in appearance the Miami blue butterfly in the wild. However, there are morphological features that can differentiate the species and enforcement personnel should not have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between collected individuals of the species after
We appreciate and are seeking comments from the State of Florida on this proposal. We find that continuing this treatment will not substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act
arvest of shovelnose sturgeon was still having a substantial and detrimental effect on the pallid sturgeon (Service 2007, pp. 45-48). Subsequently, on September 1, 2010, we finalized a rule under section 4(e) of the Act (75 FR 53598) treating the shovelnose sturgeon as a threatened species due to its similarity of appearance to the pallid sturgeon to reduce the threat of harvest of pallid sturgeon.
To prevent misidentification with pallid sturgeon where their ranges overlap with shovelnose sturgeon, regulations at 50 CFR 17.44(aa) establish certain prohibitions and exceptions for activities with regard to the shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe, and provides that the Service has the authority to permit otherwise prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32.
We propose to remove treatment for the shovelnose sturgeon as a threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.44(aa). According to our most recent status review, all threats identified at the time of listing, including overutilization and overharvest ( e.g., due to similarity of appearance to the shovelnose sturgeon), remain a concern (Service 2021, p. 4). However, the regulations regarding commercial harvest of pallid sturgeon, and the potential for misidentification of pallid sturgeon as shovelnose sturgeon, are largely duplicative with several State laws.
For example, in Illinois, shovelnose sturgeon may not be commercially harvested except in the Mississippi River upstream of the Mel Price Lock and Dam in Alton, Illinois (excluding the area from lock and dam 19 to the State Highway 9 bridge in Niota), the Ohio River, and the Wabash River. Shovelnose sturgeon may only be commercially harvested from October 1 through May 31 from the Mississippi and Wabash River and from October 15 through May 15 from the Ohio River. A commercial roe harvest permit is required to commercially harvest shovelnose sturgeon from any body of water
of appearance permit (50 CFR 17.52) instead of a permit at 50 CFR 17.32. The regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 pertain to permits for similarity of appearance cases and outline application requirements, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and duration of permits. The regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 pertain to permits for threatened species ( i.e., those listed as threatened under section 4(a) of the Act).
Issuance criteria for permits for similarity of appearance species at 50 CFR 17.52 are minimal compared to those for species listed under section 4(a) and are as follows: (1) Whether the information submitted by the applicant appears reliable, and (2) whether the information submitted by the applicant adequately identifies the wildlife or plant in question so as to distinguish it from any endangered or threatened wildlife or plant. The 50 CFR 17.52 criteria for obtaining permits are focused on whether the applicant has provided reliable evidence that the specimen subject to the otherwise prohibited activity is from an unlisted similarity of appearance species under section 4(e) or is from a listed species under section 4(a).
The issuance criteria at 50 CFR 17.32(a)(2) for threatened species are more detailed and focus on the conservation needs of the species. The issuance criteria under 50 CFR 17.32(a)(2) considers the following factors: (1) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required is adequate to justify removing from the wild or otherwise changing the status of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (2) The probable direct and indirect effect which issuing the permit would have on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (3) Whether the permit, if issued, would in any way, directly or indirectly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival probabilities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit was or would be removed; (4) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required would be likely to reduce the t
s of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (3) Whether the permit, if issued, would in any way, directly or indirectly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival probabilities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit was or would be removed; (4) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required would be likely to reduce the threat of extinction facing the species of wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (5) The opinions or views of scientists or other persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wildlife or other matters germane to the application; and (6) Whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to successfully accomplish the objectives stated in the application.
It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are not at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to conserve another species under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 rather than 50 CFR 17.32 to ensure they are accurately identified prior to authorizing otherwise prohibited activity. We find that it would be appropriate to ensure the continued identification of the unlisted southern DPS of bog turtle as distinct from the listed northern DPS when authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. We anticipate persons involved in legal activities with the southern DPS would have access to the necessary information and have minimal difficulty meeting their burden to produce evidence that the specimen is from the southern DPS. The bog turtle is listed as threatened or endangered in every State in the southern and northern portion of the range and State-issued permits may also be needed for activities with the southern DPS.
We also propose to revise the wording at 50 CFR 17.42(f)(2) to make the current prohibitions and exceptions clearer. We currently cite to 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b), which then cites to the applicable prohibitions and exceptions
threatened or endangered in every State in the southern and northern portion of the range and State-issued permits may also be needed for activities with the southern DPS.
We also propose to revise the wording at 50 CFR 17.42(f)(2) to make the current prohibitions and exceptions clearer. We currently cite to 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b), which then cites to the applicable prohibitions and exceptions. Instead, we propose to cite directly to the applicable prohibitions and exceptions, as this is clearer for the public and is more in keeping with the current practice for species-specific rules. These minor clarifications would result in no change in prohibitions or exceptions.
This proposal would not alter any protections for the northern DPS of the bog turtle. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities with either the northern or southern DPS without a permit are subject to law enforcement. Additionally, this proposal would not affect any threatened species permits currently issued under the authority of 50 CFR 17.32 for the similarity of appearance species; any such permits issued under the stricter standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their terms and conditions.
We continue to find that the southern DPS of the bog turtle so closely resembles the northern DPS in appearance that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species, and the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to the northern DPS. We also find that this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with section 4(e)
d have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species, and the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to the northern DPS. We also find that this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with section 4(e).
Desert Tortoise (Mojave DPS) and Desert Tortoise (Sonoran DPS)
On April 2, 1990, the Service published a final rule (55 FR 12178) listing the Mojave DPS of desert tortoise as a threatened species due to habitat loss and degradation, illegal collection, disease, and predation. We also determined that treating the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise as a threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the Mojave DPS would facilitate law enforcement (55 FR 12178 at 12189, April 2, 1990). Therefore, in that final rule, we also made final determinations to treat the Sonoran DPS (desert tortoise found outside of Arizona (south and east of the Colorado River) and Mexico) as a threatened species and issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) outlining the prohibitions and exceptions for the Sonoran DPS. We subsequently identified a threat to desert tortoises from their collection for human food sources (Service 1994, p. 6). In our status reviews (Service 2010, p. 48; Service 2022, p. 22), we explain that collection still occurs and could possibly impact local populations.
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) establish certain prohibitions and exceptions for activities with regard to the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise
ified a threat to desert tortoises from their collection for human food sources (Service 1994, p. 6). In our status reviews (Service 2010, p. 48; Service 2022, p. 22), we explain that collection still occurs and could possibly impact local populations.
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) establish certain prohibitions and exceptions for activities with regard to the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise. Specifically, the regulations make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit
The regulations also provide several exceptions to these prohibitions ( e.g., Federal and State law enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship the Sonoran DPS taken in violation of the Act as necessary in performing their official duties; certain individuals can take individuals to aid, salvage, or dispose of the Sonoran DPS; States, the Service and NMFS can take individuals when carrying out conservation programs; and the Service has the authority to permit otherwise prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32).
We propose to amend the treatment of the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise as a threatened species by revising the regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited under a similarity of appearance permit (50 CFR 17.52) instead of a permit at 50 CFR 17.32 for the same rationale as provided for the bog turtle above. It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are not at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to conserve another species, under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 rather than 50 CFR 17.32, to ensure they are accurately identified prior to authorizing otherwise prohibited activity.
We find that it would be appropriate to ensure the continued identification of the unlisted Sonoran DPS as distinct from the listed Mojave DPS when authorizing otherwise prohibited activities
ter standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their terms and conditions.
We continue to find that the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise so closely resembles in appearance the Mojave DPS that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species, and the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to the Mojave DPS. We also find that this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with section 4(e).
Pearl River Map Turtle and Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle
On July 12, 2024, the Service published a final rule (89 FR 57206) listing the Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species. In that final rule, we also made final determinations to treat the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtles as threatened species and issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n) outlining the prohibitions and exceptions for those species. We determined that the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle all closely resemble in appearance the Pearl River map turtle such that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species. We also determined that treating these species as listed species minimizes the possibility that private and commercial collectors will be able to misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes (89 FR 57206 at 57232, July 12, 2024).
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n) establish certain prohibitions and exceptions for activities with regard to the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle
necessary in performing their official duties; certain individuals can take individuals to aid, salvage, or dispose of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle; and the States, Service, and NMFS can take individuals when carrying out conservation programs; and the Service has the authority to permit otherwise prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32.
We propose to amend the treatment of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species by revising the regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n) to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited under a similarity of appearance permit at 50 CFR 17.52 instead of a permit at 50 CFR 17.32.
It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are not at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to conserve another species, under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 rather than 50 CFR 17.32, to
This proposal would not alter any protections for the Pearl River map turtle. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities with the Pearl River map turtle or the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle without a permit are subject to law enforcement. Additionally, this proposal would not affect any threatened species permits currently issued under the authority of 50 CFR 17.32 for the similarity of appearance species; any such permits issued under the stricter standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their terms and conditions.
We continue to find that the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle so closely resembles in appearance the Pearl River map turtle that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species and the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to the Pearl River map turtle
tions.
We continue to find that the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle so closely resembles in appearance the Pearl River map turtle that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species and the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to the Pearl River map turtle. We also find that this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with section 4(e).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—E.O.s 12866 and 13563
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. )
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; title II of Pub. L
he rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. )
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency, or that person's designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rulemaking proposes to remove or revise the Service's regulations treating 11 species as threatened species under section 4(e) of the Act based on similarity of appearance to listed species. Removing treatment under section 4(e) or revising 4(e) regulations to require permitting under 50 CFR 17.52 instead of 17.32 would reduce regulatory burden. We certify that, if adopted as proposed, this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. )
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ):
visions of the Act. See Secretary's Order 3206, “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act” (June 5, 1997).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )
This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. )
We are analyzing this proposed rule in accordance with the criteria of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the Department of the Interior regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR 46), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 8). We invite the public to comment on the extent to which these proposed regulation revisions may have a significant impact on the human environment or fall within one of the categorical exclusions for actions that have no reasonably foreseeable effects on the quality of the human environment. We will complete our analysis, in compliance with NEPA, before finalizing these proposed regulation revisions.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use—E.O. 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. The proposed revised regulations are not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no statement of energy effects is required.
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by E.O.s 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;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
nergy action, and no statement of energy effects is required.
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by E.O.s 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;
(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 believe 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.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176 and upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).
Authority
We issue this proposed rule under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, and Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend part 17 of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
§ 17.11 [Amended]
2

## Nearby sections

- [90 FR 59 Access to Video Conferencing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30501.md)
- [90 FR 271 Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Unmanned Aircraft Systems](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30209.md)
- [90 FR 283 Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Moderate Attainment Plan Elements for the Cleveland Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30717.md)
- [90 FR 578 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31624.md)
- [90 FR 581 Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit; Hearing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31233.md)
- [90 FR 1050 Modification of Class E Airspace; Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31694.md)
- [90 FR 1054 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Ute Ladies'-Tresses From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30380.md)
- [90 FR 1419 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions for Gray Wolf](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31754.md)
- [90 FR 1421 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Bleached Sandhill Skipper](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31761.md)
- [90 FR 1909 Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31219.md)
- [90 FR 2550 Amendments to Definitions and Related Provisions Under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00124.md)
- [90 FR 3046 Airworthiness Directives; Siam Hiller Holdings, Inc, Helicopters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00588.md)
- [90 FR 3107 C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30931.md)
- [90 FR 3720 Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment Rate](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00193.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-18728. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.