[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31875-31880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13479]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028: FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000]
RIN 1018-AX99
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Hualapai Mexican Vole From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce a 12-month finding on a petition and a proposed rule to remove
the Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife because the original
classification is no longer the most appropriate determination. This
action is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, which indicates that the currently listed
subspecies is not a valid taxonomic entity. We are seeking information,
data, and comments from the public on this proposed rule.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received or postmarked on or before August
3, 2015. Comments submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be
considered in the final decision on this action. We must receive
requests for public
[[Page 31876]]
hearings, in writing, at the address shown below in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028, which is the
docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2011-0037; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 220411-3803.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone
(602-242-0210) or by facsimile (602-242-2513). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
Any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on
the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate as
possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties
concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful
and likely to influence our decisions are those supported by data or
peer-reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses
of, applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as
specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition,
please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or
provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
(1) New information concerning the taxonomic classification and
conservation status of Hualapai Mexican voles and Mexican voles in
general;
(2) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of Hualapai Mexican voles, including
the locations of any additional populations; and,
(3) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and
habitat use of Hualapai Mexican voles.
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.''
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider
comments sent by email, fax, or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the Web site. Please note that comments posted to this Web
site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the
system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include 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. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions
on http://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will
be available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028, which is the docket number for this
rulemaking.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and places of those
hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that delisting a species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register. This document represents our 12-month warranted finding on an
August 18, 2004, petition by the Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD) to delist the Hualapai Mexican vole and a proposed rule to
remove the Hualapai Mexican vole from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife due to data indicating that the original
classification is no longer the appropriate determination.
Previous Federal Actions
The Hualapai Mexican vole was included in a list of species
considered for listing in our Notice of Review published on December
30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). We published a proposed rule to list the
Hualapai Mexican vole as
[[Page 31877]]
endangered on January 5, 1987 (52 FR 306). The Hualapai Mexican vole
was listed as an endangered subspecies on October 1, 1987, without
critical habitat (52 FR 36776). On August 19, 1991, a Recovery Plan for
the Hualapai Mexican vole was finalized and signed by the Regional
Director (Service 1991). The recovery plan outlined recovery objectives
and provided management actions and research priorities, but did not
contain recovery criteria for downlisting or delisting because of lack
of information on the vole's biology and life history requirements
(Service 1991, p. iv).
On August 23, 2004, we received a petition dated August 18, 2004,
from the AGFD requesting that the Hualapai Mexican vole be delisted
under the Act. Included in the petition was information in support of
delisting the Hualapai Mexican vole because the original classification
is no longer the appropriate determination due to evidence that the
Hualapai Mexican vole is not a valid subspecies. On May 15, 2008, we
announced a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (73 FR 28094) that
the petition presented substantial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Further, on March 29, 2010, we
published a notice initiating 5-year status reviews for the Hualapai
Mexican vole as well as 13 other species (75 FR 15454). However, the 5-
year status review for the Hualapai Mexican vole was not completed.
On January 8, 2015, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from Sedgwick LLC (representing Mohave County and American Stewards for
Liberty) for failure to publish a 12-month finding on the status of the
Hualapai Mexican vole. This document represents our 12-month warranted
finding on the August 18, 2004, petition by the AGFD to delist the
Hualapai Mexican vole and a proposed rule to remove the Hualapai
Mexican vole from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife because the original classification is no longer the
appropriate determination due to evidence that the Hualapai Mexican
vole is not a valid subspecies.
Species Information
Goldman (1938, pp. 493-494) described and named the Hualapai
Mexican vole as Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis in 1938. Goldman's
(1938, pp. 493-494) subspecies description was based on four specimens;
Cockrum (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and Hoffmeister (1986, pp.
444-445) all recognized Goldman's description. Hoffmeister (1986, pp.
444-445) further recognized the Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis
subspecies based on an examination of morphological characteristics
from seven additional specimens collected in two areas in Arizona
(i.e., Hualapai Mountains and lower end of Prospect Valley).
Based on morphological measurements, the Hualapai Mexican vole was
previously considered one of three subspecies of Mexican voles
(Microtus mexicanus) in Arizona (Kime et al. 1995, p. 1). The three
subspecies of Mexican voles were the Hualapai Mexican vole (M. m.
hualpaiensis), Navajo Mexican vole (M. m. navaho), and Mogollon Mexican
vole (M. m. mogollonensis). The Hualapai Mexican vole differed from the
Navajo Mexican vole subspecies by a slightly longer body, longer tail,
and longer and broader skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). Additionally,
the Navajo Mexican vole's range was farther to the northeast. The
Haulapai Mexican vole was also differentiated from the Mogollon Mexican
vole subspecies, located farther to the east, by a longer body, shorter
tail, and a longer and narrower skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443).
The final listing rule for the Hualapai Mexican vole (52 FR 36776;
October 1, 1987) stated that this subspecies occupied the Hualapai
Mountains, but also acknowledged that Spicer et al. (1985, p. 10) had
found similar voles from the Music Mountains, which are located farther
to the north in Arizona. The final listing rule (52 FR 36776; October
1, 1987) also stated that Hoffmeister (1986, p. 445) had tentatively
assigned specimens from Prospect Valley to the Hualapai Mexican vole
subspecies, pending a larger sample size. In addition, the final
listing rule (52 FR 36776; October 1, 1987) stated that, if future
taxonomic evaluation of voles from the Music Mountains and Prospect
Valley should confirm that they are indeed the Hualapai Mexican vole
subspecies, then they would be considered part of the federally listed
entity. However, we never recognized Hualapai voles outside of the
Hualapai Mountains due to insufficient data to support recognition of
additional populations.
In May 1998, we reviewed Frey and Yates 1995 unpublished report,
``Hualapai Vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) Genetic Study'', to
determine if Hualapai Mexican voles occur in additional areas outside
of the Hualapai Mountains. We found that the report did not provide
sufficient data for us to conclude that populations outside the
Hualapai Mountains are Hualapai Mexican voles. On May 29, 1998, the
Southwest Regional Director's Office issued a memo to the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office stating that we would only consult on
voles in the Hualapai Mountains until further investigations resulted
in data definitive enough to establish that the Hualapai Mexican voles
had a wider distribution than recognized at the time of listing. Thus,
we referenced the memo in all requests for consultations on Federal
projects outside the Hualapai Mountains. For these reasons, we have
only considered the Hualapai Mexican vole's range to be the Hualapai
Mountains.
Since the Hualapai Mexican vole was listed in 1987 (52 FR 36776;
October 1, 1987), several studies on the subspecies' distribution,
morphological characteristics, and genetic relationships to other
Mexican vole subspecies were undertaken. We briefly describe these
studies below. Researchers did not collect or analyze samples from the
exact same locations, so locations across studies do not necessarily
match. At this time, these studies represent the best scientific
information available in order for us to analyze Hualapai Mexican vole
distribution and taxonomic classification.
In a 1989 unpublished master's thesis, Frey conducted an extensive
study of geographic variation of specimens from throughout the range of
the Microtus mexicanus group, which included populations in the United
States and Mexico. Frey (1989) analyzed 44 external and 19 cranial
characters from 1,775 vole specimens. Based on morphological analysis,
Frey (1989, p. 50) recommended that specimens from the Bradshaw
Mountains (Coconino County, AZ), which was formerly considered the
Mogollon Mexican vole subspecies, be reassigned to the Hualapai Mexican
vole subspecies, (Hoffmeister, 1986). Frey (1989, p. 50) concluded that
two specimens that had been discovered from the Music Mountains (Mohave
County, AZ) were morphologically distinct from other recognized
subspecies, and these two specimens represented a previously
unrecognized taxonomy. Frey's (1989) study did not include specimens
from Prospect Valley.
Frey and Yates (1993, pp. 1-23) conducted a genetic analysis of
Hualapai Mexican vole tissue samples taken from 83 specimens across 13
populations using protein electrophoresis and mitochondrial DNA. The 13
populations represented all 3 subspecies in Arizona and 1 population
from Mexico (Frey and Yates 1993, p. 20). Their results showed that
three populations (i.e., Hualapai Mountains,
[[Page 31878]]
Hualapai Indian Reservation, and Music Mountains) form a closely
related group distinct from other populations in Arizona (Frey and
Yates 1993, p. 10). According to their analysis, populations in the
Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, and Music Mountains
could be regarded as the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies. Further,
Frey and Yates (1993, p. 10) found that the Navajo Mexican vole
subspecies populations from San Francisco Peaks and the Grand Canyon
occurred in a clade (i.e., related by a common ancestor) with the
Mogollon Mexican vole subspecies populations along the Mogollon Rim.
Frey and Yates (1993, p. 10) suggested that this grouping questions the
validity of Navajo Mexican vole as a separate subspecies. However, in
order to verify this suggestion, specimens would need to be examined
from the type locality of the Navajo Mexican vole subspecies, which is
Navajo Mountain, Utah (Frey and Yates 1993, p. 10). The authors
recommended additional analyses, including larger sample sizes, to
clarify the arrangement in three separate subspecies (Frey and Yates
1993, p. 10). At that time, we continued to recognize only recognize
the Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies as occurring in the Hualapai
Mountains.
Frey and Yates (1995) continued their genetic work on Mexican vole
subspecies and analyzed 173 specimens from 28 populations (16 from
Arizona, 10 from New Mexico, 1 from Utah, and 1 from Mexico) using
protein electrophoresis and mitochondrial DNA. They found that six
populations (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Music
Mountains, Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa Maria Mountains, and
Bradshaw Mountains) may be the Hualapai vole subspecies (Frey and Yates
1995, p. 9). The authors found unique alleles at two loci in these six
populations, which identified them as being closely related (Frey and
Yates 1995, p. 9). Based on geographic proximity, Frey and Yates (1995,
p. 8) suspected that two other populations (Round Mountain and Sierra
Prieta) could be the Hualapai vole subspecies, but they did not have
adequate samples for genetic verification.
Additional genetic analyses were conducted by Busch et al. (2001).
Busch et al. (2001, p. 4) examined nuclear genetic markers from 42
specimens across six populations in northwestern Arizona (Hualapai
Mountains, Prospect Valley, Bradshaw Mountains, Sierra Prieta,
Prescott, and Mingus Mountains) using Amplified Fragment Length
Polymorphism (AFLP). Additionally, they examined mitochondrial (D-loop)
DNA from 83 specimens across 13 populations in Arizona (Hualapai
Mountains, Prospect Valley, Bradshaw Mountains, Sierra Prieta,
Prescott, Mingus Mountains, South Rim Grand Canyon, San Francisco
Mountain, Mogollon Rim, White Mountains, Chuska Mountains, Aubrey
Cliffs, and Navajo Mountain). Results from their study did not support
the separation of Mexican voles into three distinct subspecies based on
nuclear and mitochondrial genetic analyses (Busch et al. 2001, p. 12).
Populations referred to as the Navajo Mexican vole subspecies from
Navajo Mountain, Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, and the Grand
Canyon South Rim and populations referred to as the Mogollon Mexican
vole subspecies from the Mogollon Rim, Chuska Mountains, and White
Mountains were genetically similar to Mexican voles in the Hualapai
Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs, Bradshaw
Mountains, Watson Woods, and Sierra Prieta (Busch et al. 2001, p. 12).
Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested that only one subspecies of
Mexican vole occurs in Arizona, but they did not suggest a new
subspecies name or to which currently named subspecies the Mexican
voles should belong. Further, Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested that
voles from the White Mountains and Chuska Mountains could be a
different subspecies or may simply show some genetic differentiation
due to geographic separation; however, their analysis was inconclusive.
Even though Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) did not suggest a name for which
the only subspecies of Mexican voles in Arizona belong, the AGFD's
(2004, p. 4) petition referred to Busch et al.'s (2001) single
subspecies as Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis.
In 2003, the AGFD sent the Busch et al. (2001) report to five
genetic experts representing the Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Oklahoma State University, and New Mexico State
University for review. Four out of the five reviewers agreed with the
Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) findings that genetic data do not support
separation of vole populations in Arizona into three subspecies. In
other words, the genetic similarities indicate that individual vole
populations cannot be assigned to one of the three subspecies. Two
reviewers agreed with Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) that a possible
exception could be in the White Mountains and Chuska Mountains;
however, these populations may simply be showing slightly higher
genetic distance based on geographic separation.
One of the five reviewers concluded that populations from the
Hualapai Mountains, Music Mountains, and Hualapai Reservation form a
closely related group distinct from other populations in Arizona. This
reviewer further stated that M. m. hualpaiensis is a valid subspecies
based on morphologic, genetic, and biogeographical data. The other four
reviewers concurred with the conclusions of Busch et al. (2001) that
all populations in Arizona could be referred to as M. m. hualpaiensis.
Even though one reviewer believed that, based on morphological,
genetic, and biogeographic evidence, populations for the Hualapai
Mountains, Prospect Valley, Bradshaw Mountains area (including Sierra
Prieta), and Chino Wash should be recognized as the Hualapai vole
subspecies, the other four reviewers concurred with the Busch et al.
(2001) report that all populations in Arizona are the same subspecies
(AGFD 2004, p. 4).
At our request, the AGFD sent Busch et al.'s (2001) genetic report
to two mammalian taxonomy experts for additional review. One of the
taxonomic reviewers agreed with the one dissenting genetic reviewer
from 2003 who stated that there are sufficient data to support
distinguishing more than one subspecies of Mexican voles in Arizona,
and concurred with the genetic reviewer's population assignments (AGFD
2004, p. 4). The other taxonomic reviewer concluded that there is no
basis to consider the three subspecies of Mexican voles (Hualapai,
Navajo, and Mogollon) separately. This second taxonomic reviewer stated
that data used by Hoffmeister (1986) were insufficient to recognize
three subspecies based on morphology, and that the genetic analyses
conducted by Frey and Yates (1993; 1995) and Busch et al. (2001) were
subject to methodological problems (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The second
taxonomic reviewer asserted that all three subspecies should be
considered as one subspecies, M. m. mogollonensis (common name not
suggested).
In summary, the various analyses and reviews present multiple
interpretations of the taxonomy and distribution of Mexican voles in
Arizona, none of which correlate with that of our original listing. The
final listing rule for the Hualapai Mexican vole (52 FR 36776; October
1, 1987) relied on the best available information at the time, and only
included Mexican voles found in the Hualapai Mountains. The various
published and unpublished reports all
[[Page 31879]]
offer different conclusions about which populations may or may not be
Hualapai Mexican voles. At this time, the best available scientific
information presents conflicting information on the taxonomy of Mexican
voles in general, and no longer supports the recognition of a separate
Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies. Reviews of the published and
unpublished reports have inconsistent conclusions. However, there is
sufficient evidence to indicate that the currently listed entity for
the Hualapai Mexican vole is no longer a valid taxonomic subspecies.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information at this time, we find that the petitioned action to delist
the subspecies is warranted, and we propose to remove the Hualapai
Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recent data indicating that
the original determination is no longer appropriate.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, other
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with
genetic and taxonomic experts and other Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial
information available, we find that the petitioned action to delist the
Hualapai Mexican vole is warranted because the original determination
at the time the species was classified as endangered in 1987 is now in
error and is no longer appropriate. There is sufficient evidence to
indicate that the currently listed entity for the Hualapai Mexican vole
is not a valid taxonomic subspecies.
In making this finding, we have followed the procedures set forth
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing
provisions of the Act in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) (50 CFR part 424). We intend that any action for the Hualapai
Mexican vole be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to
accept additional information and comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, Native American
Tribes, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
finding.
Delisting Proposal
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR part
424, set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species
or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we
then evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened
because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying
or delisting a species. For species that are already listed as
endangered or threatened, the analysis of threats must include 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 following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal or reduction of the Act's protections. We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and
commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered or
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2)
the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened;
and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species
was classified were in error. We determine that the original
classification is in error because there is sufficient evidence that
the currently listed entity for the Hualapai Mexican vole is not a
valid taxonomic subspecies.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise our regulations at
50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the Hualapai Mexican vole throughout its
range from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this subspecies,
this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act
would no longer apply for the Hualapai Mexican vole. Interstate
commerce, import, and export of this species would not be prohibited
under the Act. In addition, Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult under section 7 of the Act on actions that may
affect this species.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Service, to implement a system in cooperation with the
States to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species
that are removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12) due to recovery. The Hualapai Mexican
vole is being proposed for delisting because the original determination
at the time the species was classified is no longer appropriate.
Because the Hualapai Mexican vole is not a valid taxonomic entity, no
monitoring period following delisting would be required.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint peer review policy with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy
for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
the Office of Management and Budget's Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will seek the
expert opinions of at least three appropriate independent specialists
regarding the science in this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review
is to ensure that our delisting decision is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send copies of this
proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication
in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions in this proposed delisting of the Hualapai Mexican
vole. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final
decision document, and we will consider their input and any additional
information we received as part of our process of making a final
decision on this proposal. Such communication may lead to a final
decision that differs from this proposal.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(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 we have not met these requirements, send us comments by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To help us better revise the
rule, your comments should be as specific as
[[Page 31880]]
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
This rule does not contain any collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, we will solicit
information from Native American Tribes during the comment period to
determine potential effects on them or their resources that may result
from the delisting of the Hualapai Mexican vole, and we will fully
consider their comments on the proposed rule submitted during the
public comment period. We have already been in contact with the
Hualapai Tribe's Natural Resource Department.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, or upon request from the
Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Vole, Hualapai
Mexican'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: May 22, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13479 Filed 6-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P