Federal Register Vol. 83, No.172,

On January 10, 2018, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) met and passed the recommendation to form a VRF multi-split systems working group to meet and discuss and, if possible, reach a consensus on proposed federal test procedures and standards for VRF multi-split systems. On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, DOE published a notification of intent to establish a working group for VRF multi-split systems to negotiate a notice of proposed rulemaking for test procedures and energy conservations standards. The notice also solicited nominations for membership to the working group. 83 FR 15514. This notice announces the next series of meetings for this working group.

DOE will host a public meeting and webinar on the below dates.

The purpose of these meetings will be to negotiate in an attempt to reach consensus on proposed federal test procedures and standards for VRF multi-split systems.

The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify the ASRAC staff at [email protected].

Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed.

DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. A driver's license from a State or territory identified as not compliant by DHS will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and territories as identified on the DHS website (Enhanced licenses issued by these States and territories are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.

In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

ASRAC's Designated Federal Officer will preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. A transcript of the public meeting will be included on DOE's website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. Public comment and statements will be allowed prior to the close of the meeting.

The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publically available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

I. Background and Introduction

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 1 was enacted to encourage financial institutions 2 (banks) to help meet the credit needs of the communities that they serve, including LMI neighborhoods, consistent with the banks' safe and sound operations. In passing the CRA, Congress established that (1) banks are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business; (2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and (3) banks have a continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.3 The statute directed each appropriate federal financial supervisory agency (i.e., the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, agencies)) to assess the record of a bank in meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI neighborhoods; 4 take this record into account when evaluating the bank's application for a deposit facility; 5 and report to Congress the actions it has taken to carry out its CRA responsibilities.6 The CRA directed each agency to publish regulations to carry out the statute's purpose.7

Since the CRA's enactment, Congress has amended the statute numerous times, including in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 8 (which required public disclosure of a bank's CRA written evaluation and rating); the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 9 (which required the inclusion of a bank's CRA examination data in the determination of its CRA rating); the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 10 (which (1) required an agency to consider an out-of-state national bank's or state bank's CRA rating when determining whether to allow interstate branches; and (2) prescribed certain requirements for the contents of the written CRA evaluation for banks with interstate branches); and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 11 (which, among other things, provided regulatory relief for smaller banks by reducing the frequency of their CRA examinations).

In 1978, consistent with Congress' statutory directive, the agencies promulgated the first CRA regulations.12 They have since amended these regulations on several occasions, most significantly in 1995 and 2005.13 In addition, the agencies have periodically published interpretations of the CRA regulations in the form of Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment (Q&A guidance).14

The CRA requires each agency to prepare a written evaluation of a bank's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI neighborhoods, at the conclusion of its CRA evaluation.15 This report, known as a Performance Evaluation (PE), is required to be a public document that presents an agency's conclusions regarding a bank's overall performance for each “assessment factor” identified in the CRA regulations.16 A PE must also present facts and data supporting the agency's conclusions 17 and contain both the bank's CRA rating and a description of the basis for the rating.18 A bank's CRA rating is considered, for example, in applications to merge or acquire another bank, open a branch, or relocate a main office or branch.19 A bank with a CRA rating below “satisfactory” may be restricted from certain activities until its next CRA evaluation, which is generally one or more years in the future.

Over the past two decades, the financial services industry has undergone transformative changes, including the removal of bank interstate branching restrictions and the expanded role of technology in financial services. To better understand how banking products and services are delivered to consumers in this evolving industry and how these changes affect a bank's CRA performance, the agencies have solicited feedback from the banking industry, community groups, academics, and others (collectively, stakeholders) on several occasions. For example, in 2010, the agencies held a series of joint public hearings across the country and solicited written feedback regarding how to update the CRA regulations in light of, among other things, changes in how banking services were delivered to consumers.20

From 2014 through 2016, the agencies again solicited feedback on the CRA, as part of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 review,21 and received more than 60 comments about the CRA regulatory framework. These comments raised issues related to regulatory burden, as well as broader issues related to modernizing the CRA regulations and related Q&A guidance. During 2017 and 2018, the OCC held numerous meetings with bankers, community groups, non-profit organizations, legislators, and other stakeholders and regulators to discuss the current CRA regulatory framework and to solicit input on how to improve the current regulatory framework.

During 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) invited a diverse group of stakeholders to provide feedback on how the CRA regulations could more effectively encourage economic growth in the communities that banks serve.22 On April 3, 2018, the Treasury Department issued recommendations to the agencies for broad changes to the fundamental administration of the CRA based on the feedback it had received. Specifically, the Treasury Department recommended updating the approach to delineating assessment areas to reflect the changing nature of banking; improving the evaluation process to increase the timeliness of evaluations and enable greater accountability for banks' CRA activity planning; increasing the clarity and flexibility of CRA evaluations to foster transparency and effectiveness in CRA rating determinations; and incorporating performance incentives to encourage banks to meet the credit and deposit needs of their communities.23

As the financial services industry continues to evolve, many stakeholders believe that the statutory purpose of the CRA—to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities they serve, including LMI areas, in a manner that is consistent with their safe and sound operation—is not fully or effectively accomplished through the current regulations. Although aspects of the current CRA regulatory framework may be sufficient for certain locally focused and less complex banks, stakeholders have expressed concern that the current CRA regulatory framework no longer reflects how many banks and consumers engage in the business of banking. Stakeholders have also identified concerns about the lack of clarity, consistency, and certainty with respect to current CRA regulatory requirements.

The OCC has reached out to and engaged with over 1,000 stakeholders on the existing CRA framework and whether it is meeting the credit needs of communities, given the changing landscape of the financial services industry and banking. The OCC's goal for issuing this ANPR is to obtain additional public input on how to revise the CRA regulations to encourage more local and nationwide community and economic development—and thus promote economic opportunity—by encouraging banks to lend more to LMI areas, small businesses, and other communities in need of financial services. The agency invites comments on how to revise the CRA regulations to bring greater clarity, consistency, and certainty to the evaluation process, as well as to provide flexibility to accommodate banks with different business strategies. The OCC also invites comments on how to update assessment area definitions to accommodate digital lending channels, while retaining a focus on the communities in which bank branches are located. Additionally, the agency invites comments on clarifying and broadening the range of activities supporting community and economic development that qualify for CRA consideration.

The following sections of the ANPR invite comments from all stakeholders on changing the current approach to performance evaluations; developing metrics to increase the objectivity of performance measures; updating how communities and assessment areas are defined to accommodate banks with different business strategies and allow banks to help meet the needs of underserved communities; broadening the range of qualifying activities to better support the purpose of the CRA; and enhancing recordkeeping and reporting. The OCC invites all comments and suggestions for other ways to improve the CRA regulatory framework.

The OCC's current CRA regulations provide different methods to evaluate a bank's CRA performance depending on the bank's asset size and business strategy.24 Some stakeholders have expressed the view that the current regulatory framework is too complex, the asset thresholds for the performance tests and standards have not kept pace with bank asset sizes, and the standards are not applied transparently or consistently in performance evaluations.

Under the current framework,

• small banks (banks with less than $313 million in assets) are evaluated under a retail lending test that may also consider community development (CD) loans. CD investments and services may be considered for an outstanding rating at the bank's option, but only if the bank meets or exceeds the lending test criteria in the small bank performance standards.

• intermediate small banks (ISB) (banks with asset sizes between $313 million and $1.252 billion) are evaluated under the retail lending test for small banks and a CD test. The ISB CD test evaluates all CD activities together.

• large banks (banks with more than $1.252 billion in assets) are evaluated under the lending, investment, and service tests. The large bank lending and service tests consider both retail and CD activity, while the investment test focuses on qualified CD investments.

• wholesale and limited purpose banks are evaluated under a CD test that considers activities in a much broader geographic area than the area that is considered for large banks or ISBs.

• a bank whose business predominantly consists of serving the needs of military personnel who are not located within a defined geographic area is evaluated under the performance test or standards applicable to its size and business model; such a bank, however, may delineate its entire deposit customer base as its assessment area.

• any bank can elect to be evaluated under a strategic plan that sets out measurable, annual goals for lending, investment, and service to achieve a satisfactory or outstanding rating. A strategic plan must be developed with community input and approved by the bank's primary regulator.

Additionally, although the small bank, ISB, and large bank lending tests share some common elements, other elements are unique to each test. For example, to facilitate the evaluation of performance under the large bank lending test, the CRA regulations require that certain data on small business, small farm, and CD loans be collected and reported annually. Small banks and ISBs are not required to report this data.

Finally, the OCC also considers applicable performance context information to inform its conclusions and CRA ratings in all cases.

The CRA statute does not define “community.” The statute requires the OCC to state conclusions, supported by facts and data, on banks' performance in metropolitan areas and—for banks with branches in more than one state—in the nonmetropolitan area of a state where a bank has one or more domestic branches.25

The current CRA regulations also do not expressly define “community”; they implement the concept by requiring a bank to delineate one or more “assessment area(s)” in which the agency evaluates the bank's record of helping to meet the credit needs of its “community.” 26

The current CRA regulations specify what must be and what cannot be included in the assessment area delineation. The current interpretation of the regulations limits assessment area(s) to the area(s) surrounding a bank's main office, branch offices, and deposit-taking automated teller machines (ATMs).

A bank's CRA performance evaluation is based primarily on the CRA-qualifying activities that occur in or serve a bank's assessment area(s). For some banks, their assessment area(s) may not include a substantial portion of the area(s) in which they conduct activities that would otherwise qualify for CRA consideration. The activities that occur outside of the bank's assessment area that do not have a purpose, mandate, or function of serving the bank's assessment area generally will not receive consideration unless the agency concludes that the bank has been responsive to the needs of its assessment area(s). Even then, the current CRA regulations and Q&A guidance generally limit consideration of CD activities to the broader statewide or regional areas that includes the bank's assessment area(s).27 Stakeholders have expressed concern that, in practice, the lack of clarity in the regulations and guidance limits banks' willingness or ability to engage in CD activities outside of their assessment area(s).

The current assessment area definition was developed when banking was based largely on physical branch locations as the primary means of delivering products and services. While some banks continue to conduct most of their CRA-qualifying activities within their assessment area(s), in part because of the current framework for evaluating CRA performance, banking has evolved and the cost of operating branches has increased. Changes in the industry offer more opportunities for banks to engage in business outside of the geographies surrounding physical branches. Numerous factors, including technological advances in the delivery of banking services, shifting business models, and changes in consumer behavior and preferences permit banks to engage in the business of banking regardless of whether they have branches or, if they do, the location of their branches.

The OCC invites comments on changes to transform or modernize the current CRA regulatory framework, including with respect to the following questions:

1. Are the current CRA regulations clear and easy to understand?

2. Are the current CRA regulations applied consistently?

3. Is the current CRA rating system objective, fair, and transparent?

4. Two goals of the CRA are to help banks effectively serve the convenience and needs of their entire communities and to encourage banks to lend, invest, and provide services to LMI neighborhoods. Does the current regulatory framework support these goals in light of how banks and consumers now engage in the business of banking?

5. With the statutory purpose of the CRA in mind, what aspects of the current regulatory framework are most successful in achieving that purpose?

6. If the current regulatory framework is changed, what features and aspects of the current framework should be retained?

The OCC invites comments on ways to modernize the current regulatory framework by modifying and streamlining the existing CRA performance tests, such as by implementing an alternative evaluation method or by increasing and enhancing the use of metrics within the performance tests. One such alternative evaluation method could replace existing performance tests and standards and separately evaluate retail or CD activities for all banks, accounting for variations in size, business model, and other factors. This approach could include updated metrics that take into account information on a bank's performance context, such as the demographic characteristics and the economic and financial conditions of specific communities.

The OCC also invites comments on a more transformational approach to the CRA regulatory framework that could (1) increase the transparency of how a bank's CRA performance is evaluated by using quantitative benchmarks for specific ratings and clear standards for quantifying CRA activities; (2) define “community” more broadly to include additional domestic geographies in which the bank engages in the business of banking; and (3) expand the types of activities that would receive CRA consideration in a CRA evaluation, with a focus on lending, investments, and services for LMI geographies and individuals and other geographies and populations in need of financial services. Such an approach could simplify and improve the implementation of the CRA while better effectuating the law's directive to encourage banks to serve their entire communities, including LMI neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.

One approach is to create a metric-based performance measurement system with thresholds or ranges (benchmarks) that correspond to the four statutory CRA rating categories.28 These benchmarks could represent the overall or “macro” benchmarks for obtaining a particular rating and could be composed of the “micro” components of CRA qualifying lending, investments, and services. These components could be aggregated to achieve the overall benchmark or level of performance. This approach would allow flexibility to accommodate bank capacity and business models while facilitating the comparison among banks of all sizes and business models and the evaluation against an objective, transparent threshold.

In a metric-based framework designed to bring clarity to the determination of CRA ratings, the benchmarks representing the dollar value of CRA-qualified activity could be compared to readily available and objective criteria, such as, a percentage of domestic assets, deposits, or capital from the bank's balance sheet, to calculate a ratio that could correspond to the benchmark established for each rating category. For example, a bank with $1 billion in total assets that conducted $100 million of CRA-qualifying activities in the aggregate would achieve a 10-percent ratio, if total assets were used for the denominator.

The OCC invites comments on the above approaches, including with respect to the following questions:

7. How could an alternative method for evaluating CRA performance be applied, taking into account the following factors: bank business model, asset size, delivery channels, and branch structure; measures or criteria used to evaluate performance, including appropriate metrics; and consideration for qualifying activities that serve areas outside a bank's delineated assessment areas?

8. How could appropriate benchmarks for CRA ratings be established under a metric-based framework approach, taking into account balance-sheet items, such as assets, deposits, or capital and other factors, including business models?

9. How could performance context be included in such a metric-based approach?

10. In a metric-based framework, additional weight could be given to certain categories of CRA-qualifying activities, such as activities in certain geographies, including LMI areas near bank branches; activities targeted to LMI borrowers; or activities that are particularly innovative, complex, or impactful on the bank's community. How could a metric-based framework most effectively apply different weighting to such categories of activities? For example, should a $1 loan product count as $1 in the aggregate, while a $1 CD equity investment count as $2 in the aggregate?

11. How can community involvement be included in an evaluation process that uses a metric-based framework?

12. For purposes of evaluating performance, CD services are not currently quantified in a standard way, such as by dollar value. Under a metric-based framework, how should CD services be quantified? For example, a bank could calculate the value of 1,000 hours of volunteer work by multiplying it by an average labor rate and then include that number in the aggregate total value of its CRA activity.

To recognize evolving banking practices, the OCC invites comments on ways to update how a bank's community is interpreted for purposes of implementing the CRA. Under an updated approach, banks would continue to receive consideration for CRA-qualifying activities within their branch and deposit-taking ATM footprint and could receive consideration for providing these types of beneficial activities in LMI areas outside of their branch and deposit-taking ATM footprint and other underserved areas. An updated approach to defining assessment areas could allow a bank to include additional areas tied to the bank's business operations (e.g., areas where the bank has a concentration of deposits or loans, non-bank affiliate offices, or loan production offices). Under such an approach, banks could include these additional geographies in their assessment areas, enabling consideration of CRA-qualifying activities conducted within these areas. Such an approach could address concerns that the current CRA assessment areas can restrict bank lending or investment in areas of need, by expanding the circumstances in which banks receive consideration for CRA-qualifying activities beyond their delineated assessment areas. Providing consideration for activities conducted in targeted areas or areas that have historically been largely excluded from consideration such as remote rural populations or Indian country, for example, could help promote services and activities in those areas as well. It may also accommodate banks that either operate with business models that have no physical branches or banks with services that reach far beyond the geographic location of their physical branches. While the OCC would continue to assess CRA performance as required by statute, qualifying activities outside of the areas where a bank has its main office, branch offices, and deposit-taking ATMs could be considered and assessed in the aggregate, at the bank level, in addition to activities in its traditional assessment areas or local geographies.

The OCC invites comments on this approach, including with respect to the following questions:

13. How could the current approach to delineating assessment areas be updated to consider a bank's business operations, in addition to branches and deposit-taking ATMs, as well as more of the communities that banks serve, including where the bank has a concentration of deposits, lending, employees, depositors, or borrowers?

14. Should bank activities in the LMI geographies surrounding branches and deposit-taking ATMs, or in other targeted geographic areas, be weighted (and if so, how), or should some other approach be taken to ensure that activities in those areas continue to receive appropriate focus from banks, such as requiring banks to have some minimum level of performance in the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and non-MSA areas in which they have domestic branches before receiving credit for activity outside those areas?

The OCC invites comments on the type and categories of activities that should receive CRA consideration. Within the current regulation's performance tests and standards, CRA activities are generally considered in two categories—retail and CD—with the objective of encouraging banks to engage in a broad range of CRA-qualifying activities that are within LMI and other areas specified in the regulations and that benefit LMI individuals, small businesses, and small farms. For the most part, CRA-qualifying activities are defined by the regulations and further described in the Q&A guidance. The statute, however, requires the agencies to consider low-cost education loans provided to low-income borrowers, and it permits the agencies to consider activities undertaken by a non-minority-owned bank in conjunction with a minority- or women-owned bank or low-income credit union (MWLI), provided these activities benefit the MWLI's local community.

Some stakeholders have expressed concerns about which activities receive CRA consideration. These stakeholders generally express a desire for more clarity and certainty regarding which CD, small business, lending, and retail service activities will receive CRA consideration.

The OCC invites comments on regulatory changes that could ensure CRA consideration for a broad range of activities supporting community and economic development in banks' CRA performance evaluations, while retaining a focus on LMI populations and areas, and set clear standards for determining whether an activity qualifies for CRA consideration. The OCC recognizes that providing greater clarity on qualifying activities could be beneficial in supporting the goals of the CRA for all banks, including those with more traditional business models.

Additionally, under the current regulatory framework banks receive CRA consideration for certain small business loans. The CRA regulatory definition of a small business loan mirrors the definition found in bank Call Reports.29

The OCC also considers whether a large bank uses innovative or flexible lending practices in addressing the credit needs of LMI borrowers or geographies. Depending on the facts and circumstances, a bank that develops a unique approach or lending program targeted to support the needs of borrowers or small businesses in LMI geographies, LMI borrowers, or small businesses may be eligible to receive consideration under CRA for those activities.

The OCC invites comments on the role of small business credit in LMI areas or for LMI small business owners, and under what circumstances small business loans should receive CRA consideration.

The OCC invites comments on qualifying activities, including with respect to the following questions:

15. How should “community and economic development” be defined to better address community needs and to incentivize banks to lend, invest, and provide services that further the purposes of the CRA? For example, should certain categories of loans and investments be presumed to receive consideration, such as those that support projects, programs, or organizations with a mission, purpose, or intent of community or economic development; or, within such categories, only those that are defined as community or economic development by federal, state, local, or tribal governments?

16. Should there be specific standards for CD activities to receive consideration, such as requiring those activities to provide identified benefits to LMI individuals and small business borrowers or to lend to and invest in LMI communities or other areas or populations identified by federal, state, local, or tribal government as distressed or underserved, including designated major disaster areas (hereinafter referred to as “other identified areas” or “other identified populations”)?

17. Are there certain categories of CD activities that should only receive consideration if they benefit specified underserved populations or areas, such as providing credit or technical assistance to small businesses or small farms; credit or financial services to LMI individuals or other identified populations (such as the disabled); or social services for LMI individuals or job creation, workforce development, internships, or apprentice programs for LMI individuals or other identified populations?

18. Should consideration for certain activities that might otherwise qualify as CD be limited or excluded? For example, how should investments in loan-backed securities be considered?

19. How should financial education or literacy programs, including digital literacy, be considered?

20. Should bank activities to expand the use of small and disadvantaged service providers receive CRA consideration as CD activities?

21. The current regulatory framework provides for CRA performance evaluations to consider home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending, and consumer lending in certain circumstances. Should these categories of lending continue to be considered as CRA-qualifying activities or should consideration in any or all of these categories be limited to loans to LMI borrowers and loans in LMI or other identified areas?

22. Under what circumstances should consumer lending be considered as a CRA-qualifying activity? For example, should student, auto, credit card, or affordably priced small-dollar loans receive consideration? If so, what loan features or characteristics should be considered in deciding whether loans in these categories are CRA-qualifying?

23. Under what circumstances should small business loans receive CRA consideration? For example should consideration be given to all loans to businesses that meet the Small Business Administration standards for small businesses?

24. How should small business loans with a CD purpose be considered?

25. Should a bank's loan purchases and loan originations receive equal consideration when evaluating that bank's lending performance?

26. Should loans originated by a bank to hold in portfolio be weighted differently from loans originated for sale? If so, how?

27. Should bank delivery channels, branching patterns, and branches in LMI areas be reviewed as part of the CRA evaluations? If so, what factors should be considered?

28. The CRA states that the agencies may take into consideration in the CRA evaluation of a non-minority-owned and non-women-owned financial institution (majority-owned institution) any capital investment, loan participation, and other venture undertaken in cooperation with MWLIs, even if these activities do not benefit the majority-owned institution's community, provided that these activities help meet the credit needs of local communities in which the MWLIs are chartered. What types of ventures should be eligible for such consideration, and how should such ventures be considered?

The OCC also invites comments on how to modernize CRA regulations to promote transparency and consistency in recordkeeping, reporting, and examination requirements. The current regulatory approach does not facilitate regular tracking, monitoring, and comparisons of levels of CRA performance by banks and other stakeholders. One advantage of a modernized CRA framework that uses objective reportable metrics could be to allow for better tracking by banks of their overall CRA level of performance on a regular, periodic basis. If a metric-based framework and clarified standards for identifying and measuring qualifying activities were implemented, such an approach could also allow stakeholders to better understand the level of a bank's CRA performance on a straightforward and timely basis.

This type of framework may involve an updated approach to the OCC's CRA-related data collection to be used for monitoring and assessing banks' CRA performance. Additionally, under a metric-based framework, the ability to differentiate among activities based on their location, type, or other factors may involve additional recordkeeping and reporting.

Such reporting could also support comparison among banks, their peer groups, or the entire industry and would support understanding of industry-wide activity and trends.

The OCC invites comments on CRA recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The OCC notes that additional feedback on recordkeeping and reporting may be necessary if a new framework is proposed in a future rulemaking.

29. Could the reporting of data gathered using a metric-based approach on a regular, periodic basis better support the tracking, monitoring, and comparison of CRA performance levels?

30. How frequently should banks report CRA activity data for the OCC to evaluate and report on CRA performance under a revised regulatory framework?

31. As required by law, and to the extent possible, the OCC attempts to minimize regulatory burden in its rulemakings consistent with the effective implementation of its statutory responsibilities. The OCC is committed to evaluating the economic impact of, and costs and benefits associated with, any changes that are proposed to the CRA regulations. Under the current regulatory framework, what are the annual costs, in dollars or staff hours, associated with CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting?

The OCC invites other ideas and options for modernizing the CRA regulatory framework not identified in this ANPR.

On August 16, 2018, the Buffalo Scholastic Rowing Association notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a rowing regatta from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on October 20, 2018, in conjunction with the Head of the Buffalo Regatta. The rowing vessels will launch for their warmup from the Ohio St. Kayak Launch, at position 42°51′55.9″ N, 78°52′07.2″ W, then proceed to travel upriver to turnaround at position 42°51′36.7″ N, 78°50′56.0″ W. The race will then begin at position 42°51′40.0″ N, 78°50′56.5″ W, and proceed downriver to the finish line near the Ohio St. bridge at position 42°52′17.5″ N, 78°52′21.0″ W. Participants will then proceed further upriver to the turnaround point located at position 42°52′19.4″ N, 78°52′25.3″ W, and return to the starting point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with rowboat races would be a safety concern for anyone within that stretch of the Buffalo River.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance the safety of vessels and racers on the navigable waters within the above stated points, before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone to be enforced intermittently from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on October 20, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between the two points starting at position 42°52′19.4″ N, 78°52′25.3″ W, and ending at position 42°51′36.7″ N, 78°50′56.0″ W, on the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled rowboat races between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of the Buffalo River. However, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone lasting 10 hours that would prohibit entry into the waters contained within a 3.1-mile stretch of the Buffalo River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.

Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

On March 13, 2018, the State of Louisiana submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated on January 13, 2015, April 8, 2015 and April 17, 2015, RCRA Cluster XXIV (Checklists 233A, 233B, 233C, 233D2, 233E, 234 and 235), as well as state-initiated changes. The EPA has reviewed Louisiana's application to revise its authorized program and has made a tentative decision that it meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant LDEQ final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application, except for federal provisions that were vacated from the January 13, 2015 final rule (Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW)) by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 862 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2017) and Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, No. 09-1038 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018).

LDEQ will continue to have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders, and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Louisiana, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

If Louisiana is authorized for these changes, a facility in Louisiana subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply with any applicable federal requirements such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization. LDEQ continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

• enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits, and

• take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.

The action to approve these provisions would not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which LDEQ is requesting authorization are already effective under state law, and are not changed by the act of authorization.

If the EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address those comments in our final action. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this proposed authorization, you must do so at this time.

The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889), effective January 29, 1990; August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958), as corrected October 15, 1991 (56 FR 51762), effective October 25, 1991; November 7, 1994 (59 FR 55368), effective January 23, 1995 (Note: On January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), the EPA responded to public adverse comments and affirmed the effective date for the November 7, 1994 final rule). Then on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18360), the EPA also made administrative corrections for the January 23, 1995 Federal Register document; December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66200), effective March 8, 1995; October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53704), effective January 2, 1996; March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13777), effective June 11, 1996; December 29, 1997 (62 FR 67572), effective March 16, 1998; October 23, 1998 (63 FR 56830), effective December 22, 1998; August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46302), effective October 25, 1999; September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48099), effective November 1, 1999; February 28, 2000 (65 FR 10411), effective April 28, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 23), effective March 5, 2001; December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68526), effective February 9, 2004; June 10, 2005 (70 FR 33852), effective August 9, 2005; November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66116), effective January 12, 2007; August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45905), effective October 15, 2007; May 20, 2009 (74 FR 23645), effective July 20, 2009; June 24, 2011(76 FR 122), effective August 23, 2011; June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38530), effective August 27, 2012, September 14, 2015 (80 FR 55032), effective November 14, 2015 and July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32253) effective September 11, 2017. On March 13, 2018, LDEQ submitted a final program revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.

Since 1979, through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabled the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission to conduct an effective program designed to regulate those who generate, transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the 1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted, which amended and reenacted La. R. S. 30:1051 et seq. as the Environmental Quality Act, renaming the Environmental Affairs Act (Act 1938 of 1979). This Act created Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), including provisions for new offices within this new Department of Environmental Quality. Act 97 also transferred the duties and responsibilities previously delegated to the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs to the new Department. The LDEQ has lead agency jurisdictional authority for administering the RCRA Subtitle C program in Louisiana. Also, the LDEQ is designated to facilitate communication between the EPA and the State. During the 1999 Regular Session of Louisiana Legislature, Act 303 revised the La. R. S. 30:2011 et seq., allowing LDEQ to reengineer the Department to perform more efficiently and to meet its strategic goals.

It is the intention of the State, through this application, to demonstrate its equivalence and consistency with the federal statutory tests, which are outlined in the United States EPA regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 271 for final authorization. The submittal of this application is in keeping with the spirit and intent of RCRA, which provides equivalent States the opportunity to apply for final delegation to operate all aspects of their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the federal government. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act authorizes the State's program, Subtitle II of Title 30 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

On March 13, 2018, the State of Louisiana submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Louisiana's program revision application includes revisions to the federal hazardous waste program, as well as state-initiated changes to the state's previously authorized program.

The EPA proposes to authorize, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that the State of Louisiana's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.

The LDEQ program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated on January 13, 2015, April 8, 2015 and April 17, 2015 (RCRA Cluster XXIV; Checklists 233A, 233B, 233C, 233D2, 233E, 234 and 235). LDEQ's adoption of the January 13, 2015 final rule (80 FR 1694; Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW)), includes provisions that have been vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 862 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2017) and Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, No. 09-1038 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018). The impact of the vacaturs on the Louisiana hazardous waste program is discussed in Section G of this document. We propose to grant Louisiana final authorization for the requirements which are listed in Table 1.

States that have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize their changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

The EPA has determined that Idaho's application to revise its authorized program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste management program with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will continue to have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized States before the States are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until Idaho is granted authorization to do so.

If Idaho is authorized for these changes, a facility in Idaho subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply with any applicable Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement authorities and responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management program for violations of its program. However, the EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:

• Conduct inspections, which may include but is not limited to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements, which may include but is not limited to suspending, terminating, modifying, and/or revoking permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Idaho has taken its own actions.

The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

If the EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those comments in a later final action. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this proposed authorization, you should do so at this time.

Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647, December 23, 2008), July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012) and September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726, August 20, 2015).

On March 29, 2018, Idaho submitted a program revision application to the EPA requesting authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2016, incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.05.000 et seq., which were adopted and effective in the State of Idaho on March 29, 2017. This authorization revision request includes the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the first time: Conditional Exclusions from Solid and Hazardous Waste for Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448, July 31, 2013); Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014); Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System—Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014); Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste—CFR Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014); Definition of Solid Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015); Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities—Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988, July 2, 2015); and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member Countries—Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015).

The EPA proposes to authorize Idaho's revised hazardous waste program in its entirety through July 1, 2016, as described above. The EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State law that is less stringent than the Federal program. Any State law that is less stringent does not supplant the Federal regulations. State law that is broader in scope than the Federal program requirements is not authorized. State law that is equivalent to, and State law that is more stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case those provisions are enforceable by the EPA. This section discusses certain rules in this proposed action where the EPA has made the finding that Idaho's program is broader in scope, and discusses certain portions of the Federal program that are not delegable to the State because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions.

Idaho is currently broader in scope than the Federal program in its adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at IDAPA 58.01.05.004 and 58.01.05.005. Both of these regulations include provisions from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule that have been vacated and replaced with the less stringent requirements found at 40 CFR 260.43 (2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2018), which were reinstated from the 2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising its regulations to include this update as required by the vacatur to be equivalent to the Federal program.

The EPA cannot delegate certain Federal requirements associated with the following rules: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System—Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014), Revisions to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June 26, 2014), and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member Countries—Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992, July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these requirements and appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them.

Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities located in Indian country. The EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not authorized.

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:

1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho;

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and

3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this program revision does not extend to Indian country where the EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program.

This action proposes to revise the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This authorization complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant”, and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The E.O. defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. The EPA has determined that this proposed authorization is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed authorization does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community and only seeks to propose authorization for the pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed authorization on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. I certify that this proposed authorization will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed authorization will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed authorization contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. It proposes to impose no new enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also determined that this proposed authorization contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, this proposed authorization is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.

This proposed authorization does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This document proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not apply to this proposed authorization.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed authorization does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to this proposed authorization.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it proposes to approve a state program.

This proposed authorization is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under E.O. 12866, as discussed in detail above.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this proposed authorization will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This proposed authorization does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because this document proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections 1006, 2002(a), 3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.

I. Background

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to clarify, in FAR subpart 7.4, Equipment Lease or Purchase, that the term “lease,” as used in the subpart, includes the “rental” of equipment. This change clarifies that agencies should be evaluating comparative costs and other factors when considering whether to lease or rent equipment versus purchase equipment. The rule also adds a helpful link to a GSA site that provides additional guidance on renting and leasing equipment and updates the GSA office from which agencies may request information when making lease or purchase decisions. In addition, weblinks have been added to the rule for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for lease-purchase analysis, see Special Guidance for Lease-purchase Analysis (Section 13 of (OMB) Circular A-94, also see 8.c.(2)); and OMB Circular A-11 Appendix B Budgetary Treatment of Lease-Purchases and Leases of Capital Assets.

This rule proposes to amend FAR subpart 7.4, as follows:

• Adding language to the scope of the subpart to clarify that the term “lease”, as used in the subpart, applies to both the lease and rental of equipment, and to identify some general factors that may vary when leasing or renting equipment.

• Adding a GSA website that provides information that could assist the contracting officer in making equipment lease or purchase decisions, and updating the GSA office to contact when an agency requests assistance with the lease versus purchase analysis decision. In addition, weblinks have been added to the rule for OMB guidance for lease-purchase analysis.

This rule amends the FAR to clarify that although the term “lease” applies to both the lease and rental of equipment, there are some differences between renting and leasing in many industries, and there is no standard distinction between both renting and leasing that spans across all industries. This case does not add any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:

The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2017-017) in correspondence.

The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR part 7 as set forth below:

Information Requested Public Comments

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. Therefore, we request comments and information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) Reasons why we should or should not reclassify the golden conure from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

(2) The golden conure's biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

(3) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include:

(a) Habitat modification or destruction (e.g., information regarding future rates of deforestation or other forms of habitat loss or degradation within the known range of the golden conure);

(b) Overutilization, including information regarding illegal collection and trade;

(c) Disease or predation;

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.

(4) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.

(5) Information on the locations of any additional or newly discovered populations of this species. See Appendix B in the species status assessment report (SSA) for a list of known localities used by the golden conure (available under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on http://www.regulations.gov.

(6) Information on the number of captive-bred golden conures in Brazil.

(7) Information regarding current or future rates of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon as they may correlate to current or projected gross domestic product (GDP) in that country.

(8) The appropriateness of the conservation measures proposed under section 4(d) of the Act, including those that would allow the import and export of certain golden conures into and from the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce without a permit under the Act.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as electronic copies of scientific journal articles or other publications, preferably in English) 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, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your 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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested within 45 days of the date of publication of this proposed rule. Requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and received by the date specified in DATES.

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our reclassification determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 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 of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report that informed this proposed rule. The peer reviewers have expertise in (1) the life history of the golden conure, (2) birds of the Amazon, and (3) the effects of habitat degradation and deforestation on Amazonian birds. We received responses from four of the five peer reviewers, which we took into account in our SSA and this proposed rule. Their comments and suggestions can be found online at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/peer_review_process.html. We invite any additional comments from the peer reviewers on the proposed rule during the public comment period on this proposed rule (see DATES, above); all comments received from peer reviewers will be available, along with other public comments, in the docket for this proposed rule at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019.

On May 22, 1975, the Fund for Animals, Inc., petitioned us to list 216 taxa of plants and animals, including the “golden parakeet,” as an endangered species pursuant to the Act. On September 26, 1975, we proposed to list the “golden parakeet (Aratinga guaruba)” as endangered (40 FR 44329). On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24062), we finalized the listing as endangered.

On August 21, 2014, we received a petition from the American Federation of Aviculture, Inc. (AFA), requesting that the golden conure be removed from the List or reclassified as a threatened species. The AFA also requested that if we determined that downlisting to threatened status was warranted, we develop a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (also called a 4(d) rule) that would allow for import and export of certain golden conures into and from the United States, and interstate commerce of the species under certain circumstances.

On April 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 19259), a 90-day finding for the 2014 petition, concluding that the petition provided substantial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted, and we initiated a status review for this species.

On July 29, 2017, the AFA filed a complaint under the Act to compel the Service to issue a 12-month finding regarding the AFA's petition, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). On November 6, 2017, the AFA and the Service entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Service agreed to submit a 12-month finding for the golden conure to the Federal Register for publication no later than September 1, 2018. This proposed rule constitutes the 12-month finding and our 5-year status review for the golden conure.

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the golden conure is presented in the SSA Report (Service 2018; available at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on http://www.regulations.gov). The following discussion is a summary of the information and analyses from the SSA Report.

The golden conure is currently listed as endangered under the Act (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976) and the species is considered “Vulnerable” at the national level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recently reclassified the species from endangered to vulnerable because its population is estimated to be larger than previously thought (Bird Life International (BLI) 2017, unpaginated). IUCN's “vulnerable” listing acknowledges that the species nevertheless has a small estimated population that is expected to experience a rapid decline over the next three generations due to habitat loss and limited pressure from poaching (BLI 2017, unpaginated). The species is also included in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I (CITES 2018a, unpaginated). CITES is an international treaty for the conservation of wild fauna and flora subject to trade; species on CITES Appendix I are considered threatened with extinction and international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade (CITES 2016, unpaginated).

The golden conure is a large, 34-centimeter (13-inch), macaw-like bird with striking yellow plumage and green flight feathers (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Parr and Juniper 2010, p. 436). The sexes are similar in appearance, but in first-year juveniles the yellow color is variably streaked with green—most often on the back of the head, nape and chest (Forshaw 2017, p. 223; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Reynolds 2003, p. 10).

The golden conure was first documented in 1788 (ITIS 2017, unpaginated) and was later noted in the manuscripts of European explorers to Brazil in the 18th and 19th centuries (Yamashita 2003, p. 38). It was originally placed in its own (monotypic) genus Guaruba, then subsequently placed in the genus Aratinga by some authors (Peters 1937; Pinto 1978; Forshaw 1989, as cited in Tavares et al. 2004, p. 239), while others placed it in the genus Conurus (Salvadori 1891; Miranda Ribeiro 1920, as cited in Tavares et al. 2004, p. 239).

Researchers have since noted that its behaviors, including reproduction and vocalization, differ markedly from those of Aratinga species and have recommended that the golden conure's scientific name be returned to the monotypic genus Guaruba (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Sick 1990, p. 112). Additionally, recent genetic analyses indicate that the golden conure is more closely related to the red-shouldered macaw (Diopsittaca nobilis) and the blue-crowned parakeet (Thectocercus acuticaudatus) (Urantówka and Mackiewicz 2017, entire), than to the Aratinga parakeets (Tavares et al. 2004, pp. 230, 236-237, 239). Therefore, the golden conure is recognized as Guaruba guarouba by (1) the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2017, unpaginated); (2) the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee (Piacentini et al. 2015, p. 163); (3) Taxonomy of Birds of the World (Clements et al. 2017, unpaginated); and (4) Birdlife International (BLI 2017, unpaginated). Based upon our review of the best available information, we recognize the golden conure as a valid full species in the monotypic genus Guaruba and we are proposing to correct its scientific name to Guaruba guarouba on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (see Proposed Technical Correction, below).

In general, the golden conure is relatively poorly studied and information on local abundance and distribution of populations throughout the range is limited (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 303). An earlier global population estimate (i.e., from 2010 and earlier) indicated fewer than 2,500 individuals remained, but a 2011 estimate signaled the global population contained 10,875 individuals within 174,000 square kilometers (km2) (67,182 square miles (mi2)) of suitable habitat (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311). This estimate was derived using: (1) Occurrence data obtained after 1987, that extended the species' known range considerably to the southwest; (2) a density estimate calculated from a conure survey in western Pará in 2007 (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311); and (3) estimates of suitable habitat within the known area of occurrence from a habitat modeling study in 2009 (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009). However, because the golden conure has a patchy distribution and is poorly studied, more survey work would be required to produce better estimates.

The species' current known range includes portions of the following four states in Brazil (noted from east to west): (1) The western part of Maranhão; (2) the central region of Pará; (3) the extreme southeast of Amazonas; and (4) the northeastern portion of Rondônia (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). Additionally, the species was recorded in a fifth state, the northern portion of Mato Grosso, in the 1990s (Lo 1995, entire), but there have been no recent sightings in that area (Moura in litt. 2018; BLI 2016, p. 2; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 3; Albertani et al. 1997, p. 135).

The species' historical range once extended farther eastward (to more eastern portions of the states of Pará and Maranhão), but the habitat there was mostly deforested in the 1970s and 1980s (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 5). The golden conure is believed to be extirpated from these regions (BLI 2017, unpaginated; BLI 2016, p. 3; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 5), which represented approximately 30 to 35 percent of the historical range (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8).

The species is limited to regions where extensive stands of tall Amazonian rainforest are still present (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 331). Although the species can tolerate some disturbance in the forest, the golden conure is absent from landscapes with advanced deforestation; flocks disappear seasonally from the fragmented landscapes, indicating that they require intact forest (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated).

The best estimate of the geographic distribution of the golden conure is based on recent records and habitat modeling (see Service 2018, Figures 5 and 6, pp. 19-20; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, entire). The total current range of the golden conure is estimated to be no more than 340,000 km2 (131,275 mi2) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 3). The species' distribution within this range is not continuous and is described as patchy—possibly associated with the distribution of specific nesting or food resources (Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 6). The estimated suitable habitat for the golden conure within this range is 174,000 km2 (67,182 mi2) (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311). However, parrots can cross great gaps and are capable of flying long distances (Lees and Peres 2009, pp. 284, 286); thus, it is possible that some of the recent records of the golden conure that extended the range represent vagrant groups (Moura in litt. 2018). Because the species has a patchy distribution within its range, extrapolation of densities to estimate the global population is problematic, and population estimates throughout the range are needed (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated).

The golden conure lives in in Brazil's lower Amazon basin, in an area south of the Amazon River, east of the Madeira River, and north of the Brazilian Shield (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 9). The Brazilian Shield is a region formed of Precambrian crystalline rocks that may be exposed or covered by layers of sedimentary rocks (Buckup 2011, p. 203). The species occupies primary (old growth) terra firme (unflooded) rainforest on undulating landscapes in the lowlands at elevation at or under 300 meters (984 feet) (Sick 1997, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). However, the species has also has been recorded in the regrowth of secondary forests and in igapó (seasonally flooded) forests while feeding (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated, citing several sources; Laranjeiras 2011b, pp. 308-309; Oren and Noveas 1986, p. 332; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). The majority of golden conure groups appear to be resident (i.e., non-migratory), even in the post-reproductive period (Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in Forshaw 2017, p. 226; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38).

The golden conure uses large, old growth, hardwood trees (Yamashita 2003, p. 38) for cavity nesting (Oren and Novaes 1986, pp. 333-334). In most cases, the species uses the same tree for nesting and roosting (BLI 2016, p. 4; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38). Most known nest and roost cavities have been found high in tall, standing, dead trees within a small, disturbed (cleared) area adjacent to continuous forest. The golden conure seems to prefer using isolated trees (i.e., some distance from a neighboring tree) for nesting likely because isolated trees provide better protection against terrestrial or arboreal predators (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Kyle 2005, p. 3). To date, we are aware of 7 different species of hardwood trees used for nesting (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 308; Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333; Lima et al. 2014, p. 323) and more than 28 species of fruiting trees used for feeding (Service 2018, pp. 10, 60-61).

The golden conure is frugivorous (fruit-eating), and its diet varies throughout the year and across its distribution (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). The species eats whole fruit, seeds, pulp, buds and flowers, nectar, and peels; it will also feed on cultivated plants such as corn (Zea mays) and mangoes (Mangifera indica) (Laranjeiras 2011b, pp. 308-309; Oren and Noveas 1986, p. 332).

Breeding and nesting take place during the wet months, generally from November or December through April (Forshaw 2017, p. 227; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 332). The social structure and breeding behavior of the golden conure appear to be unique from that of other members of the parrot family in that the species engages in communal brood-rearing. The golden conure remains in flocks made up of family groups or clans (averaging 10 individuals) (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated), and individuals in the group (referred to as “reproductive helpers”) assist in rearing the young. Most other large parrots are believed to incubate and rear young in pairs (Albertani et al. 1997, pp. 135-136).

The golden conure's communal brood-rearing includes the use of one or two uncommon reproductive strategies where the flock is either made up of (1) multiple related nesting pairs with reproductive helpers (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333), or (2) a single leading pair with juveniles from different generations acting as helpers (Reynolds 2003, p. 12; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333). Nest protection seems to be an important part of communal brood-rearing, and a group will vigorously defend the nest in response to potential competitors or predators (Forshaw 2017, p. 228; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated).

Most of the information regarding development of the young is from captive birds. Eggs hatch within 28 to 30 days (Arndt 1996, as cited by Forshaw 2017, p. 227; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333). Nestlings reach adult size in about 60 days (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated) and fledge at approximately 55-60 days post hatch (Arndt 1996, as cited by Forshaw 2017, p. 227). The post-reproductive period, when first year juveniles can be seen in the flocks at feeding sites in the wild, is from March or April to July or August (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 304; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 332).

First-year juveniles always stay with the family group and can be easily identified by their green-streaked plumage (Yamashita 2003, p. 38). Juveniles attain adult plumage in a molt when they are about 1 year old (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). Fledged chicks and juveniles will beg for food from foraging adults (Kyle 2005, p. 4). Annual survival information is limited, but first-year juveniles represent no more than 13 percent of the individuals in flocks (Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). In some areas (e.g., in eastern Pará, where trapping for the illegal pet trade has occurred), the percentage of observed first-year juveniles in the flocks was zero (Reynolds 2003 as cited by Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 309).

In captivity, adults reach sexual maturity at about 3 years of age (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333), with the average age for successful breeding occurring between 6 and 8 years (Reynolds, 2003, p. 12). Lifespan for the golden conure in the wild is not known, although the generation length was estimated as 7.4 years (BLI 2016, unpaginated) and the maximum age recorded for the species in captivity was 60 years with a median age of 14 years (calculated using adults ≥4 years; n = 190) (Young et al. 2011, p. 35). Information is lacking on the species' carrying capacity, birth rates, nesting success, and home range (broadly defined as confined areas where individuals conduct their day-to-day activities (Boitani and Fuller 2000, p. 65).

A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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. A species may be removed from listed status (i.e., “delisted”) or reclassified on the same basis. Our analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future without the Act's protections.

In our analysis, we considered conservation measures (primarily the use of protected areas) as part of the current condition and projected future scenarios to evaluate viability of the species (Service 2018, pp. 42-47). We generally define viability as the ability the golden conure to sustain populations in natural ecosystems and disturbed habitats over time. Using the SSA framework, we considered what the species needs to maintain viability by evaluating the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Wolf et al. 2015, entire). For further information on viability, see the SSA Report (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019).

When we listed the golden conure as endangered in 1976, the species was perceived to be declining in numbers due to any one the following factors, or a combination of all three factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A); overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); or the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976).

The golden conure presently faces the most risk from loss and degradation of its habitat from deforestation originating from multiple anthropogenic activities (Factor A) (BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 and SEMA 2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 5). Habitat loss and degradation is likely to be intensified by synergistic effects associated with the consequences of climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) (Factor E). Climate projections include increased temperatures, dryer conditions, and more extreme weather (including droughts), which have the potential to stress trees and cause tree mortality (Fearnside 2009, pp. 1003, 1005). These conditions also increase the unintentional spread of fires, further contributing to deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). Additionally, the golden conure is still being illegally collected and traded within Brazil, at some unknown level, for the live pet bird trade (Factor B). These threats and other potential stressors are discussed in detail in the SSA Report and are summarized below.

Large-scale deforestation in the Amazon has occurred since the 1970s and 1980s concurrent with the growth of Brazil's economy (GFA 2017, unpaginated). The Brazilian Amazon is approximately the size of Western Europe, and as of 2016, an area the size of France has been lost to deforestation (Fearnside 2017a, pp. 1, 3). Approximately 30 to 35 percent of the golden conure's range has already been lost to deforestation, primarily in the eastern states of Pará and Maranhão (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8), and another 23 to 30 percent of the golden conure's habitat is predicted to be lost within 22 years or three generations (Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1),

The golden conure's range partially overlaps what is known as the “arc of deforestation,” an area in the southeastern Amazon where rates of deforestation and forest fragmentation have been the highest (Prioste et al. 2012, p. 701; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8). After a long period of deforestation in the Amazon, rates dropped dramatically during the years from 2005 to 2011 (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76; Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759)). Deforestation declined from an annual average of about 21,000 km2 (8,108 mi2) per year for the 5-year period between 2000 to 2004—to 7,000 km2 (2,703 mi2) in 2009 (Petherick 2013, p. 8; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759).

Despite these declines, the total area deforested in Brazil's Amazon has risen steadily since deforestation rates were first measured in 1988 (IPAM 2017, p. 7 using PRODES 2017 data). More recently, deforestation rates are increasing again (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; IPAM 2017, p. 15; Biderman and Nogueron 2016, unpaginated), as global demand for agricultural commodities continues to rise (Brando et al. 2016, abstract), and the “arc of deforestation” could continue to be a hotspot (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76).

An area does not have to be mostly deforested to lose value as suitable habitat for forest-dependent species such as the golden conure. Deforestation itself creates isolation of remnant forest patches and forest edge effects (Barlow et al. 2016, p. 144; Ewers and Didham 2006, pp. 123-124). Edge effects decrease habitat quality within remaining patches and the functional connectivity between them (Zurita et al. 2012, p. 504, citing many sources). Additionally, disturbance within the forest remnant, such as selective logging and increased fires, changes forest structure and species composition, generally reducing biodiversity (Barlow et al. 2016, p. 144).

Forest habitat degradation and fragmentation typically begin with road construction and subsequent human settlement. Activities resulting from human settlement include: (1) An increased network of unofficial roads; (2) logging; (3) crop production and cattle ranching; (4) increased fires; and (4) further infrastructure development, including more roads, dams and hydroelectric projects, and mining (GFA 2018a, b, c, and d, unpaginated; GFA 2017, unpaginated; Sonter et al. 2017, entire; Barber et al. 2014, entire; BLI 2016, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38).

Roads have a major effect on Amazon deforestation. Deforestation is much higher near roads (including unofficial roads) and rivers (Barber et al. 2014, entire). Nearly 95 percent of all deforestation occurred within 5.5 km (3.4 mi) of roads or 1 km (0.6 mi) of rivers (Barber et al. 2014, pp. 203, 205, 208). Unofficial roads are rapidly expanding in the region and contribute to further degradation, including logging, new colonization, forest fragmentation, and increased fire risk (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203).

Logging in the Amazon was once restricted to areas bordering major rivers but the construction of highways and strategic access roads, coupled with the depletion of hardwood stocks in the south of Brazil, made logging an important, growing industry (Veríssimo et al. 1992, p. 170). Logging operations typically occur on private lands claimed by ranchers, land speculators, and squatters who sell extraction rights to logging companies (GFA 2018a and b, unpaginated). After logging, the land may be clear-cut and burned, in preparation for crops (Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Burning makes nutrient-deficient land temporarily nutrient-rich, but it will only yield crops for a few years, creating a cycle of more land clearing (Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Revenues from timber sales are also used to finance conversion of the land to cattle ranching (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). Although the Brazilian forest code requires private landowners in the Amazon to maintain 80 percent of their land as forest, the code has been poorly enforced (GFA 2018b, unpaginated), and full compliance has not been achieved (Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; see Conservation Measures and Regulatory Mechanisms, below).

Logging on public lands is allowed via concessions where logging companies are granted logging rights for a fee (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). The concession system typically requires practices that minimize effects to the forest (e.g., rotation of harvest, minimum-tree-size standards, and targets for long-term sustainable yield) (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). However, the concession system is not currently working as intended and illegal logging in public protected areas remains a serious threat, particularly logging of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) (BLI 2016, p. 5), a CITES Appendix II species (CITES 2018b). CITES Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled to avoid uses that are incompatible with their survival (CITES 2016, unpaginated). An example of illegal logging is that which occurs in Jamari National Forest, an area that is poorly protected and faces pressures from loggers, squatters, and poachers (Forshaw 2017, p. 224, F. Olmos in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).

Also, as of 2010, Brazil had only leased a small amount of private concession forest, and instead, had announced plans to sell large forest tracts (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). If these lands were to become privately owned, they would be subject to Brazil's forest code and up to 20 percent could be legally deforested. Additionally, although selective logging and requirements for minimum tree sizes are intended to minimize effects to the forest, logging of larger trees is likely to have a greater effect on the golden conure because the species uses larger, older trees for its nesting and roosting (Yamashita 2003, p. 38).

Expanding crop production and ranching are also major drivers of deforestation in the Amazon basin. Soy beans only grew in temperate climates until agricultural research generated new varieties that grow in the tropics. These innovations, coupled with the application of fertilizer, allowed for the expansion of soy farming into the Amazon beginning in the 1970s (GFA 2018c, unpaginated). Soy beans are primarily used for cattle feed, and in 1990s and early 2000s, high demand for beef created a “soy-cattle pasture deforestation dynamic,” where soy production replaced existing cattle pasture, and forced new deforestation into the Amazon for cattle ranching (GFA 2018c, unpaginated). In 2006, the soy industry, in response to pressure from consumers, retailers, and nongovernment organizations, instituted a soy moratorium in Brazil's Amazon. The agreement curbs forest clearing for soy by blocking farms that violate the agreement from selling to companies that signed the soy moratorium (Gibbs et al. 2015, p. 377). In the 2 years preceding the moratorium, approximately 30 percent of soy expansion occurred through deforestation rather than by replacement of pasture or other previously cleared lands; by 2014, just 1 percent of soy expansion was responsible for deforestation in Brazil's Amazon (Gibbs et al. 2015, p. 377). The soy moratorium was renewed indefinitely in 2016, or until it is no longer needed (Patiño 2016, unpaginated).

Cattle ranching is the largest cause of deforestation in every Amazon country and is responsible for about 80 percent of current deforestation rates (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the world market (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Brazil's Amazon supports about 200 million head of cattle on approximately 450,000 km2 (173,746 mi2) of deforested land (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Cattle from the Amazon are mostly sold in the domestic markets because some of the Amazon states have not been cleared for the presence of foot-and-mouth disease (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). Beginning in 1998, states in the south (non-Amazonian) were certified as free of foot-and-mouth disease (Kaimowitz et al. 2004, as cited by Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). The growing export market for beef from these southern states has indirectly increased the demand for Amazon beef for the domestic market (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). In 2015 and 2016, new markets for Brazilian beef were opened up via agreements with Russia, the United States, and China (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). The Chinese market, in particular, has significant potential demand for both beef and leather, with China being the world's largest manufacturer of shoes (Fearnside 2017b, p. 16).

Conversion of native forest for the cultivation of palm plantations for the production of palm oil is an emerging agricultural use in the region that is likely to further reduce the amount of habitat available to golden conure. Palm oil is in high demand and the industry is highly profitable (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). Increased palm oil production has the potential to create thousands of new jobs and raise regional standards of living in Brazil (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). The Brazilian government plans to increase biofuel production in the next decade, driven primarily by demands for fuel (ethanol and biodiesel) (Villela et al. 2014, p. 273). Palm oil production has been touted as a “green fuel” from both a biodiversity and a climate change perspective because degraded lands (e.g., abandoned cattle pastures and mining areas) can be used for plantations (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). However, a recent study of regional avian biodiversity in palm oil plantations concluded that they are as detrimental to avian biodiversity as other forms of agriculture such as cattle pasture (Lees et al. 2015, entire). Therefore, any native forest converted to palm plantations will result in habitat loss for the golden conure, and any degraded land that is planted for palm oil will not have the opportunity to regenerate or be restored to suitable habitat for the species.

Increased fire risk results from human settlement and the activities noted above (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203) (see Projected Effects from Climate Change, below). Although use of fire for land management is now common in rural Amazonia (Malhi et al. 2008, p. 171), wildfires in the tropical forests of the Amazon were rare over the past millennia, and the trees are not adapted for fire (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). Amazonian trees have thin bark, and fire heats the cambium under the bark at the base of the trunk, causing the tree to die (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005) and further contributing to deforestation.

Hydroelectric dams are also a major contributor to deforestation in the Amazon. Areas affected by dams include both the area flooded by the dam and effects from the increased human settlement around the dam (GFA 2018e, unpaginated). Brazil is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world (after China), and hydropower supplies about 75 percent of Brazil's electricity (GFA 2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated). Numerous dams are under construction or planned in the Amazon basin. For example, the Belo Monte “mega dam” on the Xingu River, flooded 673 km2 (260 mi2) of lowlands and forest, and blocked 1,609 km (1,000 mi) of the Xingu River (Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated). Recently the Brazilian Government announced an end to the construction of mega dams in the Amazon (Branford 2018, unpaginated), but smaller dams within the golden conure's range are still under construction or planned (GFA 2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated; Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10763).

Mining for minerals also contributes to deforestation of the Amazon. In Brazil, mining has grown from 1.6 percent of GDP in 2000, to 4.1 percent in 2011, and is projected to increase by a factor of 3 to 5 by 2030 (Brasil Ministério de Minas e Energia 2010, as cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). In Brazil's Amazon, mining leases, exploration permits, and concessions collectively encompass 1.65 million km2 (0.64 million mi2) of land, with about 60 percent located in the Amazon forest (Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral 2012, as cited in Sonter et al. p. 1). Although mining is rapidly expanding in the region, to date, the environmental approval process for new mines or the expansion of existing projects does not consistently evaluate for off-lease effects of these projects, including the indirect or cumulative impacts to the surrounding forest (Sonter et al. 2017, p. 1). The total off-lease effects of mining-induced deforestation can be 12 times greater than that from the leases alone (Sonter et al. 2017, p. 2).

Annual deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon have always varied, but have generally been correlated with national economic growth as measured by GDP (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759). However, beginning in 2005, measures of deforestation and GDP have separated or “decoupled” (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 27; Petherick 2013 p.7). The Amazon experienced dramatic reductions in annual average rates of deforestation from almost 21,000 km2 (8,108 mi2) between 2000 and 2004—to about 7,000 km2 (2,703 mi2) in 2009 and 2010 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Petherick 2013, p. 8; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759) and 6,418 km2 (2,478 mi2) in 2011 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated). During this same period, Brazil's GDP rose steadily, indicating strong, sustained growth from an export commodity boom (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, pp. 759-760).

The decoupling has been attributed to a number of factors with no clear consensus on which factor has been the most effective (Moutinho 2015, p. 2). Contributing factors include government strategies and policies for forest conservation (Assunção et al. 2012, p. 697) such as: (1) The expansion of protected areas, which reduced the supply of unclaimed forest land (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1118); (2) an effort that began in 2007 to blacklist the worst deforesters; and (3) efforts to monitor and control municipalities with high levels of illegal deforestation through sanctions and restricted access to credit (Moutinho 2015, p. 3; Assunção et al. 2012, p. 698).

Reductions in deforestation have also been attributed to market and social forces, such as decreases in the price of agricultural commodities (including soy and beef) in 2005 (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; Assunção et al. 2012, entire) and the 2006 soy moratorium (Gibbs et al. 2015, pp. 377-378). Importantly, increased soy production from 2006 to 2010 was due to agricultural intensification practices (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 28) and expansion into previously cleared land in the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1121). Eventually cleared land that is suitable for soy production will become scarce, likely increasing deforestation pressure on the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1121). Although GDP is not presently a good predictor of Amazon deforestation (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14), as global population and food demands continue to rise (Beckman et al. 2017, p. i; Brando et al. 2016, abstract), it is possible that these measures could more closely correlate in the future.

Brazil is one of the countries that currently has comparatively low productivity levels and is projected to grow faster as it catches up with more developed countries (Guardian 2012, unpaginated). Brazil is expected to remain among the top ten economies as rated by GDP based on purchasing power parity (GDP PPP) by 2050 (PWC Global 2016). GDP PPP measures the relative purchasing power of different countries' currencies over the same types of goods and services, allowing for more accurate comparison of living standards (Euromonitor International 2013, unpaginated). Forecasts vary for Brazil's GDP PPP, with one forecast predicting that GDP PPP will rise steadily through 2050 (PWC Global 2016, unpaginated), while a more recent forecast predicts that GDP PPP will stagnate then drop after about 2050 (Knoema 2018, unpaginated). Therefore, if deforestation rates were to correlate more closely with GDP PPP in the future, in one scenario deforestation rates would steadily rise, and in the other scenario, deforestation rates would stabilize and then decline after about 2050.

Changes in Brazil's climate and associated changes to the landscape are likely to result in additional habitat loss for the golden conure. Across Brazil, temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation to decrease (Barros and Albernaz 2014, p. 811; Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 11). The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that by 2100, South America will experience temperature increases ranging from 1.7 to 6.7 degrees Celsius (°C) (3.06 to 12.06 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) under the medium and high emission scenarios and 1.0 to 1.5 °C (1.8 to 2.7 °F) under a low emissions scenario (Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 10; Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502). Projected changes in precipitation in South America vary by region, with rainfall reductions in the Amazon estimated with medium confidence (about a 5 out of 10 chance) (IPCC 2018, unpaginated; Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502).

Downscaled models, based, in part, on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, predict more severe changes, with the greatest warming and drying occurring over the Amazon rainforest, particularly after 2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48; Féres et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates of temperature changes in the Amazon by the end of the 21st century (2090-2099) are 2.2 °C (4 °F) under a low greenhouse gas emission scenario and 4.5 °C (8 °F) under a high-emission scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Increased temperatures of these amounts put the Amazon region at a high risk of forest loss and more frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). Some leading global circulation models indicate that extreme weather events, such as droughts, will increase in frequency or severity due to global warming. As a result, droughts in Amazonian forests could become more frequent in the future (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 48). For example, the 2005 drought in Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year event; however, those conditions may become a 1-in-2-year event by 2025, and a 9-in-10-year event by 2060 (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 28). Deforestation is greater under drought conditions due to more risk of fires (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16).

A number of large-scale drivers of environmental change (i.e., land-use change from deforestation and climate changes due to global warming) are operating simultaneously and interacting nonlinearly in the Amazon (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Thus, the risks to golden conure from deforestation will likely be intensified by synergistic effects associated with climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). The Amazon's rainforest may have two “tipping points”: (1) A temperature increase of 4.0 °C (7.2 14;°F); or (2) deforestation exceeding 40 percent (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Once exceeded, these tipping points could cause large-scale shifts in the vegetation to a savanna (i.e., “savannization”) mostly in the southern and eastern Amazon (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759) within the golden conure's range.

Similarly, a recent study that considered only the effects from global warming (i.e., absent deforestation) predicted that by the end of this century, some areas of rainforest will be replaced by deciduous forest and grassland in a moderate emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) and by all grassland in the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) (Lyra et al. 2016, entire). Although the projected outcomes of models are not definitive, any terra firme forest habitat that shifts from rainforest to other habitat types (e.g., savanna) would result in loss of habitat for the golden conure.

The golden conure is highly prized as an aviary bird and has been extensively trapped for both the domestic and international pet trade in the past (BLI 2016, p. 5; Alves et al. 2013, p. 60; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 132; Collar 1992, p. 304; Oren and Novaes 1986, pp. 329, 334-335). The international trade of wild neotropical parrots was significantly reduced during the 1990s due to (1) tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, (2) stricter measures under European Union legislation, (3) adoption of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.) in the United States, and (4) adoption of national legislation in various other countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Although an illegal international trade of the golden conure for the pet trade occurred in the past, there is little evidence that this practice is continuing (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, unpaginated). In contrast, the illegal domestic market for the species is still occurring at some level (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated).

Historically, keeping birds was an important part of local indigenous tradition and culture (Carvalho 1951 and Cascudo 1973, as cited by Alves et al. 2013, p. 54). Young golden conures were taken from the wild to raise as pets and for feathers, but now they are also sold to bird traders (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 335). Much of the area occupied by the golden conure is poor, and selling the birds for the domestic pet trade provides an extra source of income (Yamashita 2003, p. 39).

There are mixed reports regarding the degree to which illegal capture of golden conures from the wild (“poaching”) is still occurring. The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) has licensed and regulated bird breeding in an effort to reduce poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). As a result, several sources believe poaching is no longer a major concern for the species because trade is thought to mostly be from the substantial captive population, and thus does not significantly affect the wild population (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). Additional captive populations exist outside Brazil. There are CITES-registered captive-breeding operations for golden conures in the United Kingdom and the Philippines.

However, some level of illegal capture and trade of the species is still occurring. For example, in 2016, approximately 57 golden conures were seized in Brazil (IBAMA 2017 as cited by Lima in litt. 2018). We have no seizure data from any other years, and this number may represent a year where seizures were high, but it demonstrates that domestic trafficking is occurring (Lima in litt. 2018). Captive rearing may not be a practical alternative to illegal trade, particularly in low-income areas because the price of commercially bred birds is approximately 10 times higher than wild-caught individuals (Renctas 2001, as cited in Alves et al. 2013, p. 61; Machado 2002, as cited in Alves et al. 2010, p. 155).

Additionally, oversight of domestic wildlife-breeding facilities in Brazil is limited (Alves et al. 2010, entire), and many wild bird species declared to be captive-bred are actually born in the wild and traded under fraudulent documentation (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). Although each Brazilian state has a wildlife center responsible for managing, licensing, and inspecting all categories of breeders, traders, and zoos (Kuhnen and Kanaan 2014, p. 125), most centers lack resources and funding (Padrone 2004, as cited in Kuhnen and Kanaan 2014, p. 125). Also, there are not enough inspections at market places and commercial breeding facilities to fight illegal domestic trade (Alves et al. 2010, pp. 154-155).

The United States is a major importer of pet birds, yet relatively little trade in the golden conure has been observed. We reviewed all records of legal and intercepted illegal trade in the CITES annual trade records submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1981 to 2016. During this 35-year period, 54 live golden conures were imported into the United States and 26 were exported (UNEP-WCMC 2018, unpaginated). One record of illegal trade was reported in 1981, and involved the unlawful importation of a single animal from Brazil. Overall, the U.S. trade in the golden conure has been relatively low compared with other pet birds.

Other potential stressors to the golden conure include hunting and persecution (Factor B), and predation or disease (Factor C). The species is likely still hunted at low levels as a food source, and for feathers, and birds that raid crops may be shot by farmers (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 335). However, we have no information about the rate that these activities may be occurring or the extent to which they may be affecting populations. Similarly, we have no information regarding diseases that may affect golden conures in the wild.

Golden conures, including eggs and nestlings, are prey to a variety of native predators, including toucans (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334; Forshaw 2017, p. 228), raptors (Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated), monkeys, snakes, and the tayra (Eira barbara), an omnivorous weasel (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334). However, we have no information regarding the rates predation on the golden conure from these predators and how that may be affecting the conure.

The golden conure is considered “Vulnerable” at the national level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). Like other wildlife species, conures and their nests, shelters, and breeding grounds are protected by Brazilian environmental laws (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Environmental Crimes law of Brazil (1999) as cited in MSU 2018, unpaginated; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species Order No. 1.522/1989 as cited in ECOLEX 2018; CFRB 2010, p. 150; Law No. 5.197/1967 as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated). Additionally, several Brazilian laws are designed to protect forests. Destruction and damage of forest reserves, cutting trees in forest reserves, and causing fire in forests, among other actions, without authorization are prohibited (Clayton 2011, p. 5; Law No. 9.605/1998 as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated).

Protected areas have been emphasized as the best hope for the golden conure's survival (e.g., in the Tapajos River region and the Gurupi Biological Preserve) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 8; Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated). The species occurs in nine areas recently designated as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Brazil (BLI 2018a-h, unpaginated; Lima et al. 2014, p. 318; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 104-106). IBAs are places of international significance for the conservation of birds and other biodiversity (BLI 2018i, unpaginated). Levels of protection at IBAs vary from fully protected to no protections (BLI 2018i, unpaginated). For example, the Gurupi IBA has partial protection while the Caxiuanã/Portel IBA has none (Service 2018, pp. 68-70; BLI 2018b, unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 104-106). Additionally, the species' predicted range overlaps with numerous other protected areas, also having various levels of protection (Service 2018, pp. 68-70; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8).

Various regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, and Decree No. 78, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated) and Law 6.938/1981 (LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) direct Brazil's federal and state agencies to promote the protection of lands and govern the formal establishment and management of protected areas to promote conservation of the country's natural resources. These mechanisms generally aim to protect imperiled wildlife and plant species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems on federal, state, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, and Decree No. 1.922, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated).

Protected Areas: Protected areas have traditionally formed the backbone of forest conservation in the Amazon Basin, and they still remain a vital conservation strategy (GFA 2018f, unpaginated). Brazil has the largest protected area network in the world. The National Protected Areas System (Federal Act 9.985/2000, as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) was established in 2000, and covers nearly 2.2 million km2 (0.8 million mi2) or 12.4 percent of the global total (WDPA, 2012 as cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). This extensive network of protected areas is intended to (1) preserve priority biodiversity conservation areas, (2) establish biodiversity corridors, and (3) protect portions of the 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by World Wildlife Fund (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 612, 615; Silva, 2005, entire). Brazil's Protected Areas may be categorized as “strictly protected” or “sustainable use” based on their overall management objectives. Strictly protected areas include national parks, biological reserves, ecological stations, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges protected for educational and recreational purposes and scientific research. Protected areas of sustainable use (national forests, environmental protection areas, areas of relevant ecological interest, extractive reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private natural heritage reserves) allow for different types and levels of human use with conservation of biodiversity as a secondary objective.

By 2006, 1.8 million km2 (0.7 million mi2), or approximately 45 percent of Brazil's Amazonian tropical forest, was under some level of protection as federal or state managed land, or designated as indigenous reserve (managed by indigenous communities) (Barber et al. 2014, p. 204). Of this, 19.2 percent was strictly protected areas, and 30.6 percent was comprised of federal and state sustainable use area, with indigenous reserves making up the remainder (Barber et al. 2014, p. 204).

Indigenous lands are legally recognized areas where indigenous peoples have perpetual rights of access, use, withdrawal, management, and exclusion over the land and associated resources (GFW 2018, unpaginated). Indigenous communities sustainably use their forest land, and large-scale deforestation is prohibited (Barber et al. 2014, p. 204). Indigenous communities practice shifting cultivation, trade non-timber forest products, and occasionally allow selective logging (GFA 2018g, unpaginated; Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005, p. 721).

To date, the golden conure has been found in numerous protected areas or IBAs, with a total area of approximately 154,673 km2 (51,719 mi2) (Service 2018, pp 68-70). However, not all of the area represented contains suitable habitat for the species and several of the IBAs (39 percent) presently have no protection (61,864 km2 (23,866 mi2). An additional 26 percent of IBAs presently have just partial protection (40,582 km2 (15,669 mi2) (Service 2018, pp 68-70).

Despite significant efforts to designate and establish protected areas, funding and resources are limited and adequate enforcement of these areas is challenging. For example, the conure occurs in Jamari National Forest, which is poorly protected and faces pressures from loggers, squatters, and poachers (Forshaw 2017, p. 224, F. Olmos in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).

Forest Code: Brazil's forest code was created in 1965, and was subsequently changed in the 1990s via a series of presidential decrees (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). As of 2001, the forest code required landowners in the Amazon to conserve native vegetation on their rural properties by setting aside what is called a “legal reserve” of 80 percent of their property (i.e., with 20 percent available to be harvested) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The forest code severely restricted deforestation on private properties but proved challenging to enforce, and full compliance has not been achieved (GFA 2018b, unpaginated; Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). For instance, the lack of registered property boundaries made it difficult to link deforestation to particular land owners, and the majority of deforestation from 2002 to 2009 (about 69 percent) occurred on properties whose boundaries were not publicly registered (Azevedo et al. 2017, p. 7653).

In late 2012, a new forest code was approved that reduces restoration requirements by providing amnesty for previous illegal deforestation by smaller property holders (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). Under the older forest code, legal reserves that were illegally deforested were required to be restored at the landowner's expense. The new forest code forgives the legal reserve debt of small properties (up to 440 hectares (1,087 acres)) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). Although the 2012 forest code reduced the restoration requirements, it also introduced measures that strengthen conservation including addressing (1) fire management, (2) forest carbon, and (3) payments for ecosystem services (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).

Additionally, the new forest code created an Environmental Reserve Quota where quota surplus on one property may be used to offset a legal reserve debt on another property within the same biome; this could create a market for forested lands, adding monetary value to native vegetation and potentially abating up to 56 percent of legal reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). Proponents of the new forest code believe that it will act as an effective barrier to agricultural development, while others believe that amnesty will lead to the perception that illegal deforesters are unlikely to be prosecuted or could be forgiven in future land reforms (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, pp. 363-364).

Legal Captive Rearing and Trade: IBAMA has licensed and regulated breeding of native bird species, including golden conure, in an effort to reduce poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). The captive population of golden conures in Brazil is believed to be about 600 birds (Prioste et al. 2013, p. 146), and one breeder reported that in 8 years she reared nearly 600 birds (Weinzettl, in litt. 2015). Therefore, there is reason to believe that the captive population of golden conures in Brazil is at least 600 birds or larger. Additional captive populations of golden conures exist as CITES-registered captive-breeding operations in the United Kingdom and the Philippines. Although we have no further information on these programs, the captive rearing of golden conures in Brazil is believed to have reduced the incidence of poaching of young golden conures from the wild (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).

Reintroduction: Captive rearing and reintroduction efforts have contributed to the recovery of other parrots in Central and South America but we know of only one attempt to reintroduce the golden conure to an area where it had been extirpated. The species was extirpated from the Belém region of Pará in 1848 (Moura et al. 2014, p. 5). In 2017, researchers reintroduced the golden conure to this area (at Utinga State Park in Belém) (globo.com 2018, unpaginated). The project includes a post-release monitoring component (Moura in litt. 2018), but it is too soon to know whether or not the reintroduction has been successful.

Additional Regulatory Mechanisms: “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD) is a “payment for ecological services” initiative that creates a financial value for the carbon stored in forests (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The program offers incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). REDD plus (REDD+) goes one step further by including objectives for (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) sustainable management of forests, and (3) improvements to forest governance and local livelihoods (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). Brazil is one of the most advanced countries in the world in REDD+ planning and maintains an “Amazon Fund,” which receives compensation for reductions in deforestation. To date, the Norwegian government is the major donor and lesser donors include the government of Germany and the Brazilian oil company Petrobras (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The successful funding and implementation of REDD+ is expected to reduce rates of deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rainforest and would likely benefit the golden conure and its habitat. However, the initiative is in its early stages and is being hampered by numerous issues, particularly unresolved land-tenure problems (May et al. 2018, p. 44).

The golden conure is protected under CITES, an international agreement between member governments to ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species is legal and does not threaten species' survival. Under this treaty, CITES Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, and re-export of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant and animal species. Brazil is a Party to CITES. Trade in CITES-listed plants and animals must be authorized through a licensing system of permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Management Authority of each CITES Party. CITES includes three Appendices that list species meeting specific criteria. Depending on the Appendix in which they are listed, species are subject to various permitting requirements.

The golden conure is listed in CITES Appendix I and receives the highest degree of protection. Species listed in this Appendix are those that are threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected by trade. Commercial trade in Appendix I wildlife species is strictly prohibited, except in limited circumstances provided by the treaty. However, commercial international trade may be allowed in certain circumstances where animals have been produced by CITES-registered captive-breeding operations. Trade in specimens from registered operations may be treated as if they were listed in CITES Appendix II, although they remain Appendix I listed specimens. Each shipment requires the issuance of both CITES export and import documents. There are two CITES-registered captive-breeding operations for the golden conure: one in the United Kingdom and the other in the Philippines. The United States may also allow non-commercial trade in this species on a case-by-case basis for approved purposes such as scientific, zoological, and educational activities.

Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United States: the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). The WBCA was enacted in 1992, to ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade and to encourage wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United States any exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain circumstances. We may issue permits to allow import of listed birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25).

The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, and was the first Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is unlawful to (1) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or (2) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. Therefore, for example, because the take of wild-caught golden conures would be in violation of Brazil's wildlife law, the subsequent import of the species would be in violation of the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase specimens of these species traded contrary to CITES.

The best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the golden conure is more widespread and abundant than believed at the time of listing as endangered (BLI 2017, unpaginated; Bird et al. 2011, Appendix S1; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3) and that the threat from poaching for the pet trade (Factor B) has diminished (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99) but is still occurring at some unknown level. The global population is estimated at 10,875 individuals within 174,000 km2 (67,182 mi2) of suitable habitat across a range of approximately 340,000 km2 (131,275 mi2) (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3). Nevertheless, the population is regarded as small, and is believed to declining (BLI 2016, p. 1) primarily due to loss and degradation of its habitat from deforestation (Factor A) (BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 and SEMA 2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 5).

Although rates of deforestation have declined in recent decades, they are increasing again (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76; Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; IPAM 2017, p. 15;Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Biderman and Nogueron 2016, unpaginated) and are projected to continue to increase (Bird et al. 2011, entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 520) as the global demand for agricultural commodities continues to rise (Brando et al. 2016, abstract). Risks from deforestation will likely be intensified by synergistic effects associated with climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) (Factor E). Climate projections include increased temperatures, dryer conditions, and more frequent extreme weather (including droughts), which have the potential to stress trees and cause tree mortality (Fearnside 2009, pp. 1003, 1005). These conditions also increase the unintentional spread of fires, further contributing to deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). Deforestation itself can cause regional shifts in the climate and is likely to operate together with the effects of climate change to negatively alter rainforest habitat. Although there are uncertainties in the various models, and projected outcomes are not definitive, any terra firme forest habitat that shifts from rainforest to other habitat types (e.g., savanna) would no longer be available to the golden conure.

Although an illegal international trade of the golden conure occurred in the past, there is little evidence that this practice is continuing (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, unpaginated). In contrast, the golden conure continues to face an unknown level of pressure from poaching and illegal trade within Brazil (Factor B) (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated), particularly in poorer areas (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated; Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). Captive golden conure breeding programs in Brazil have helped to limit poaching of wild golden conures (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). However, poaching of young conures for the illicit domestic pet trade in Brazil has the potential to negatively affect golden conure populations, especially if individuals are being collected from small or fragmented populations. Population-level effects could operate synergistically with effects from habitat loss or degradation to the further detriment of the species.

Although existing conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms appear to be substantial (e.g., Brazil has the largest protected area network in the world), at this time they do not adequately ameliorate threats to the golden conure (Factor D). Despite significant efforts to preserve the rainforest in Brazil's Amazon basin, enforcement has proven to be challenging, and full compliance has not been achieved. Habitat loss due to deforestation is ongoing and is predicted to continue, resulting in global population declines of the golden conure (BLI 2016, p. 1; Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1).

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listed). The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered species or threatened species because of any one or a combination of the following: (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.

As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the golden conure and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the golden conure. We reviewed information presented in the 2014 petition, information available in our files, information gathered through our 90-day finding in response to the petition, information gathered in our status review, and other available published and unpublished information.

In considering what factors may constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to the factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine if it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act.

When we listed the golden conure as endangered in 1976, the species was perceived to be declining in numbers due to either Factor A, Factor B, or Factor D, or a combination of all three factors (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976). At present, the best scientific and commercial information available on the range and abundance of the species indicates that the species is more widespread and abundant than previously believed and that the threat from overutilization for the pet trade (Factor B) has diminished (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Habitat modeling studies have estimated that there are approximately 10,875 individuals within 174,000 km2 (67,182 mi2) of suitable habitat across a range of approximately 340,000 km2 (131,275 mi2) (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3).

Tighter enforcement of CITES, stricter European Union legislation, adoption of the WBCA in the United States, and adoption of national legislation in other countries have all helped to significantly curtail illegal international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). In addition, government-authorized captive breeding programs in Brazil are thought to have curtailed the illegal domestic trade (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). Thus, after assessing the best available information and as a result of the aforementioned information, we conclude the golden conure is not currently in danger of extinction throughout its range.

As described below, we next considered whether the golden conure is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range within the foreseeable future. The term “foreseeable future” describes the extent to which we can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species. The golden conure has already lost 30 to 35 of its historical range (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8). We expect both the species' global population and its habitat to decline an additional 23 to 30 percent in 22 years (Service 2018, pp. 42-46; Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1). Additionally, habitat loss and degradation is likely to be intensified by synergistic effects associated with the consequences of climate change (Service 2018, pp. 42-46; Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). There is a strong likelihood of warming to at least 1.5 to 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) in Latin America by the end of the Century (Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 8), and downscaled estimates for the Amazon over the same time period (i.e., by the end of the Century) indicate temperature increases of 2.2 °C (4 °F) under a low greenhouse gas emission scenario and 4.5 °C (8 °F) under a high-emission scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Increased temperatures of these amounts put the Amazon region at a high risk of forest loss and more frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). Downscaled models, based, in part, on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, predict severe changes (increased warming and drying) over the Amazon rainforest, particularly after 2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48; Féres et al. 2009, p. 2). Additionally, some leading global-circulation models indicate that extreme weather events, such as droughts, will increase in frequency, with drought becoming a 9-in-10-year event, by 2060 (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 28) further contributing to deforestation due to more risk from fires (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16). Therefore, based on the best available data, we assessed foreseeable future to be 22 to 42 years (or approximately three to six generations of the golden conure). We based the lower end of this range (22 years) on the peer-reviewed work by Bird et al. 2011, relating to deforestation and declines in the population. We based the upper end of this range (42 years) on peer-reviewed studies predicting effects from climate change (such as drought) on deforestation after about 2040 to 2060 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 28, 39, 48; Féres et al. 2009, p. 2). We conclude that it is reasonable to rely on the predictions made in these peer-reviewed studies in making determinations about the future conservation status of the golden conure.

Although the golden conure is now known to be more widespread and abundant than previously thought, the species remains relatively rare. It occurs only within the southern basin of Brazil's Amazon, and much of this area is in the “arc of deforestation” and is threatened by loss and degradation of its rainforest habitat from deforestation. Effects from deforestation are exacerbated by the projected effects from climate change. Additionally, even though government-authorized captive breeding programs in Brazil are thought to have curtailed the illegal domestic trade, some unknown level of illegal collection and trade is ongoing, particularly within Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated).

Existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts do not currently adequately ameliorate threats to the golden conure (Factor D). The factors identified above continue to affect the golden conure such that it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Based on the best available scientific studies and information assessing land-use trends, lack of enforcement of laws, predicted landscape changes under climate-change scenarios, and predictions about how those threats may impact the golden conure, we conclude that the species is likely to be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Accordingly, we find that the golden conure meets the definition of a “threatened species” under the Act, and we are proposing to list the golden conure as threatened throughout its range.

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants listing if it is endangered or threatened. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Because we have determined that the golden conure is threatened throughout all of its range, under the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) (SPR Policy), if a species warrants listing throughout all of its range, no portion of the species' range can be a “significant” portion of its range.

When a species is listed as endangered, certain actions are prohibited under section 9 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. These include, among others, prohibitions on take within the United States, within the territorial seas of the United States, or upon the high seas; import; export; and shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. Exceptions to the prohibitions for endangered species may be granted in accordance with section 10 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22.

The Act does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Secretary of Commerce depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue such regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. For the golden conure, the Service is exercising our discretion to propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. If this proposed rule is adopted, we will incorporate all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, except that import and export of certain golden conures into and from the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit under the Act, as explained below.

The proposed 4(d) rule imposes a prohibition on imports and exports (by incorporating 50 CFR 17.31), but creates exceptions for certain golden conures. Shipments of captive specimens (i.e., not taken from the wild) may include live and dead golden conures and parts and products, including the import and export of personal pets and research samples. The proposed 4(d) rule would adopt the existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of these golden conure specimens.

This 4(d) rule proposes to allow a person to import or export, into and from the United States, captive specimens, without a permit issued under the Act, provided that the export is authorized under CITES and the import is authorized under CITES and the WBCA. The import would require a CITES document issued by the foreign Management Authority indicating a source code of “C”, “D”, or “F.” Exporters of captive birds would need to provide a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the bird, along with documentation that identifies the source of their breeding stock in order to obtain a CITES export permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management Authority. Exporters of captive-bred birds must provide a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the bird confirming its captive-bred status, and documentation on the source of the breeder's breeding stock. The source codes of C, D, and F for CITES permits and certificates are as follows:

• Source Code C: Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 of the Convention.

• Source Code D: Appendix I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

• Source Code F: Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfill the definition of “bred in captivity” in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof.

The proposed 4(d) rule would not allow any U.S. import or export of golden conures that are taken from the wild; such birds must continue to meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including obtaining a permit under the Act, with the following exception. This 4(d) rule proposes to allow a person to import or export a wild golden conure specimen if the specimen was held in captivity prior to the date the species was listed in CITES Appendix I (i.e., prior to the date that CITES entered into force on July 1, 1975, with “golden parakeet” (i.e., the golden conure) listed in Appendix I) and provided that it meets all the requirements of CITES and WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in captivity prior to that date (July 1, 1975), the exporter would need to provide documentation as part of the application for a U.S. CITES preconvention certificate. Examples of documentation may include: (1) A copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed from the wild, (2) veterinary records, or (3) museum specimen reports. Additionally, consistent with the 4(d) regulations for other species in the parrot family at 50 CFR 17.41 (c), the prohibitions on take would apply and the 4(d) rule would require a permit under the Act for any activity that could take a golden conure. Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 establish that take, when applied to captive wildlife, does not include generally accepted animal husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such practices are not likely to result in injury to the wildlife.

We assessed the conservation needs of the golden conure in light of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA. As noted above in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, some level of poaching for illegal trade of golden conures is occurring within Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated) but there is little evidence that this practice occurs at the international level (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, unpaginated). The best available commercial data indicate that tighter enforcement of CITES, stricter European Union legislation, adoption of the WBCA in the United States, and adoption of national legislation in other countries have all helped to significantly curtail illegal international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Therefore, illegal international trade is not likely to be occurring at levels that negatively affect the golden conure population. Additionally, legal international trade of the species is not currently occurring at levels that affect the golden conure population. Therefore, we find that the import and export requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the necessary and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this species. This proposed 4(d) rule, if made final, would streamline the permitting process for these types of activities by deferring to existing laws that are protective of golden conures in the course of import and export.

Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship a golden conure in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce a golden conure without a permit under the Act. At the same time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21 would apply under this proposed 4(d) rule, and any interstate commerce activities that could incidentally take golden conure or otherwise constitute prohibited acts in foreign commerce would require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32.

Between 1981 and 2016, persons within the United States imported 54 golden conures and exported 26; all were reported as live captive-bred birds except two exported birds that originated from an unknown source and one imported bird seized upon import (UNEP-WCMC 2018, unpaginated; Service 2018, p. 33). These imports and exports were made for commercial, captive-breeding, zoological, and personal purposes (UNEP-WCMC 2018, unpaginated; Service 2018, p. 33). We have no information to indicate that interstate commerce activities in the United States are associated with threats to the golden conure or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species. Therefore, because (1) acts in interstate commerce within the United States have not been found to threaten the golden conure, (2) the species is otherwise protected in the course of interstate and foreign commercial activities under the take provisions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31, and (3) international trade of this species appears to be effectively regulated under CITES, we find this proposed 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the golden conure.

Sections 50 CFR 17.11(c) and 17.12(b) of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations direct us to use the most recently accepted scientific name of any wildlife or plant species, respectively, that we have determined to be an endangered or threatened species. The golden conure currently appears on the List as the “golden parakeet” (Aratinga guarouba). However, in this proposed rule, we refer to the species by the common name “golden conure” and, based on the best available scientific information regarding the species' taxonomy, we use the scientific name Guaruba guarouba. Both “golden conure” and “golden parakeet” are common names associated with Guaruba guarouba. We find that the best available scientific information available supports the designation of the golden conure to its own genus (Guaruba). Therefore, we propose to update the List to reflect this change in the scientific name for golden conure.

The basis for this taxonomic change is supported by published studies in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Urantówka and Mackiewicz 2017, entire; Tavares et al. 2004, pp. 230, 236-237, 239; Sick 1990, p. 112). Accordingly, we propose to correct the scientific name of the species under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) by changing the name as currently listed (i.e., golden parakeet (Aratinga guarouba)) to the corrected species name (i.e., golden conure or golden parakeet (Guaruba guarouba)). We note that we are not required to propose such a technical correction and can generally make such a change in a direct final rule. We determined it more efficient, however, to include the technical correction in this proposal.

If this proposed rule is made final, it would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the golden conure from endangered to threatened on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Additionally, if the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted in a final rule, the Service will incorporate all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, except that import and export of certain golden conures into and from the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit under the Act. In addition, if the proposed taxonomic change is made final, we will revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to change the species' scientific name to Guaruba guarouba, and its common name to golden conure (=golden parakeet).

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(1) Be logically organized;

(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: