Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 28895

probability of tire failure, none of which necessary to meet the RMA’s DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR were statistically significant. recommended tire pressure reserve, but Consequently, this model also did not increases of this magnitude could cause Fish and Wildlife Service establish a safety benefit associated with ride comfort to decrease considerably. a tire pressure reserve. In such cases, an increase in tire size 50 CFR Part 17 However, because this latter model would be needed, thereby triggering produced a value that approached production changes and associated cost RIN 1018–AT31 significance (p value = 0.06), we increases. Again, for a more complete decided to use these results to develop Endangered and Threatened Wildlife discussion, please see the analysis of and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding a hypothetical estimate of the costs and costs and benefits placed in the benefits of a tire pressure reserve, for the and Proposed Rule To Delist the docket.38 Given that the agency’s careful Mexican Bobcat (Lynx Rufus moment assuming that an association review of the data has found no had been demonstrated. The details of Escuinapae) demonstrable safety benefit from a tire this analysis have been placed in the pressure reserve requirement as would AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, docket,36 but the following summarizes Interior. the key points. justify rulemaking, it is unlikely that ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of finding. Using this model, we produced an imposition of these costs on consumers could withstand scrutiny under the estimate of 2.15% fewer tire failures if SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and rulemaking process. all new vehicles were required to be Wildlife Service (Service), announce the fitted with tires that had, at a minimum, V. Conclusions 12-month finding that a petition to 8 psi of pressure reserve. If we assume delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx rufus that these changes would produce a The agency is not persuaded by the escuinapae) under the Endangered proportionate reduction in tire-related RMA’s arguments that a tire pressure Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act, deaths and injuries, then we can apply reserve requirement for light vehicles or ESA), is warranted. The best available 2.15% to data from the Fatality Analysis equipped with TPMSs is needed, for information indicates that the Mexican Reporting System (FARS), the General three reasons: (1) NHTSA does not agree bobcat may not constitute a separate Estimates System (GES), and the with the RMA’s claim that the TPMS subspecies and does not constitute a National Automotive Sampling Survey standard will mislead consumers into distinct population segment (DPS). (NASS) to produce an estimate of safety believing that their tires are properly Despite habitat modification by humans, benefits. Extrapolating from a previous inflated whenever the TPMS warning the bobcat remains abundant throughout 37 NHTSA analysis, the agency estimates telltale is not illuminated, because the Mexico. Accordingly, we herein propose that the potential benefits would be petitioner has not provided compelling to delist the Mexican bobcat under the prevention of 731 crashes (with roughly evidence that shows this to be the case; Act. The Service seeks data and $2 million in property damage and (2) the RMA did not provide data to comments from the public on this travel delay savings), 4 fatalities, and 96 show that tires on vehicles with little or proposed rule. injuries in all cases involving blowouts no pressure reserve have a higher rate of DATES: Comments and information may or flat tires. However, this target be submitted until August 17, 2005. population of all blowouts or flat tires failure in the field compared with vehicles having a high tire pressure Public hearing requests must be is larger than could be impacted by tire received by July 5, 2005. reserve load, as many flat tires are reserve; and (3) the agency’s caused by running over a hazardous independent studies have not shown a ADDRESSES: Submit comments, object in the road and are not caused by reliable or conclusive relationship information, and questions to the Chief, factors influenced by tire reserve load. between tire pressure reserve and tire Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Thus, the unproven benefits listed failure claims in the field. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA above likely overstate the true potential For the reasons stated above, the benefits, although the magnitude of this 22203, USA; or by fax (703–358–2276) agency is denying the petition. In or by e-mail overstatement is unclear. accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this In terms of costs, the RMA proposed ([email protected]). Comments concludes the agency’s review of the and supporting information will be that vehicle manufacturers could petition. accommodate a tire pressure reserve available for public inspection, by requirement by simply raising the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at recommended tire inflation pressures or 30117, and 30162; delegation of authority at the above address. by specifying larger tires with more load 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. To request copies of the regulations carrying capacity for their vehicles. We Issued on: May 13, 2005. regarding listed wildlife or inquire do not believe this to be the case. We about prohibitions or permits, write to: Stephen R. Kratzke, Division of Management Authority, believe that a tire pressure reserve Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. consistent with RMA’s recommendation 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, [FR Doc. 05–9989 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am] would have major technical and cost Arlington, VA 22203, USA. ramifications for the automotive BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Alternatively, you may contact us by industry and consumers, which could telephone (703–358–2104; toll free, 1– amount to approximately $132 million 800–358–2104), fax (703–358–227), or e- per year. For many vehicles, an increase mail ([email protected]). in tire pressure of up to 8 psi may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Javier Alvarez at the above address; or 36 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20967–3. by telephone (703–358–1708), fax (703– 37 ‘‘Final Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 139, 358–2276), or e-mail New Pneumatic Tires for Light Vehicles,’’ NHTSA, ([email protected]). June 2003, p. S–2 (Docket No. NHTSA–2003– 15400–2). 38 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20967–3. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 28896 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Background On July 8, 1996, we received a Natural Resources [SEMARNAT]) did Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered petition dated June 30, 1996, from the not object to the delisting. Mr. Kline Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended National Trappers Association, Inc., supported the delisting, commenting (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires the Bloomington, Illinois. The petition and that there is no evidence of taxonomic Service to make a finding on whether a cover letter clearly identified itself as differences between bobcat populations petition to list, delist, or reclassify a such and contained the name, address, in the United States and Mexico, and species has presented substantial and signature of the petitioning that the bobcat population in Mexico information indicating that the organization’s representative. does not constitute a discrete requested action may be warranted. This Information relating to the taxonomy, population separate from the U.S. finding is to be based on all information the present population status and bobcat population. CBD opposed the trends, and threats were included in the delisting because of a lack of population available to us at the time the finding is petition. The petition requested that we information. CBD further argued that made. To the maximum extent delist the Mexican bobcat under the Act, continued listing was necessary to help practicable, the finding shall be made and noted that downlisting to prioritize research, and that within 90 days following receipt of the threatened status would not be an development along the U.S.-Mexico petition (this finding is referred to as the appropriate alternative. In a letter dated border was likely to increase, thus ‘‘90-day finding’’) and published November 4, 1996, we acknowledged reducing genetic flow between bobcat promptly in the Federal Register. If the receipt of the petition (Service, in litt., populations in Mexico and the United 90-day finding is positive (i.e., the 1996). We stated that we would address States. However, no substantial new petition has presented substantial the petition as soon as possible. Due to information was provided by any of the information indicating that the staffing and budget constraints, we were four commenters. The comments requested action may be warranted), unable to process the petition until submitted by Mr. Kline and CBD are Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the 2003. addressed in the sections below. Service to commence a status review of On June 11, 2003, we made a positive In our 90-day finding, we stated that the species if one has not already been 90-day finding on the National Trappers we had used all relevant literature and initiated under the Service’s internal Association petition (i.e., the Service information available at that time (June candidate-assessment process. In found that the petition presented 2003) on current status of and threats to addition, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act substantial information indicating that the Mexican bobcat. Since then, a also requires the Service to make a the requested action may be warranted). limited amount of relevant new finding within 12 months following That finding was published in the information has become available as a receipt of the petition on whether the Federal Register on July 2, 2003 (68 FR result of the status review and separate requested action is warranted, not 39590), thereby initiating a public consultations with the Mexican warranted, or warranted but precluded comment period and status review for Government on a U.S. proposal to by higher-priority listing actions (this the species. In that notice, we indicated remove the bobcat from Appendix II of finding is referred to as the ‘‘12-month that we would determine whether CITES. That information has been finding’’). The 12-month finding is also delisting of the Mexican bobcat was incorporated, as appropriate, in this 12- to be published promptly in the Federal warranted based on its status and month finding. Register. taxonomy. If the subspecies designation Taxonomy and Biology of the Species Previous Federal Action was found not to be taxonomically valid, we would then evaluate if the The Mexican bobcat belongs to the We listed the Mexican bobcat as an listed population in Mexico constituted mammalian family Felidae and has been endangered species on June 14, 1976 (41 a Distinct Vertebrate Population reported to be a subspecies of Lynx FR 24064). This subspecies was listed Segment (DPS), and if so, whether or not rufus. The number of taxa described under the Act due to its inclusion in we should retain the listing of this within Lynx rufus ranges from 11 to 14. Appendix I of the Convention on population. If this population did not According to Larivie`re and Walton International Trade in Endangered meet the DPS criteria, we would then (1997), six subspecies of bobcat occur in Species of Wild Fauna and Flora evaluate whether or not the listed Mexico, including L. r. escuinapae. The (CITES). By July 1, 1975, the Convention population is endangered or threatened distribution of L. r. escuinapae extends was ratified by enough nations to enter in a significant portion of the species’ from the northern states of Mexico, into force, and at that time the countries (i.e., Lynx rufus) range. The public some distance south of the Rio Grande participating in CITES agreed that the comment period remained open until and the U.S.-Mexico border, to the Mexican bobcat met the criteria for September 30, 2003. Isthmus of Oaxaca in central Mexico inclusion in Appendix I, which We received four comments during (Larivie`re and Walton 1997). Allen includes species threatened with the public comment period, including (1903) first described the Mexican extinction that are or may be affected by two from the government of the range bobcat as a subspecies from two international trade. However, it is not country (Mexico), one from a non- immature male specimens found in clear why the Mexican bobcat was governmental conservation organization Escuinapa, Mexico, on the basis of color originally included in Appendix I. In (Center for Biological Diversity [CBD]), and cranial differences. However, the 1992, during the 10-year review of and one from an individual (Mr. validity of this subspecies is species included in the CITES Lawrence G. Kline, who submitted the questionable. Samson (1979) conducted Appendices, the United States, with original petition on behalf of the a multivariate statistical analysis of a support from Mexico and other National Trappers Association). The variety of skull measurements and countries, proposed to transfer the Government of Mexico (Comisio´n found cranial characteristics of L. r. Mexican bobcat to Appendix II, based Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de escuinapae to be similar to those of L. on the bobcat’s widespread and stable la Biodiversidad/National Commission r. californicus and L. r. texensis. Also, status in Mexico and the questionable for the Understanding and Use of the range of L. r. escuinapae overlaps taxonomy of this subspecies. The U.S. Biodiversity [CONABIO], and Secretarı´a with the ranges of L. r. baileyi and L. r. proposal was accepted and the transfer de Medio Ambiente y Recursos texensis, two subspecies found in the went into effect on November 6, 1992. Naturales/Ministry of Environment and southern United States whose range

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 28897

extends into northern Mexico. However, Bobcats are polygamous (Larivie`re status in relation to the Act’s standards McCord and Cardoza (1982) noted that and Walton 1997). Most female bobcats for listing. statistical analysis of skull reach reproductive maturity at 2 years of The DPS analysis is a stepwise measurements only has meaning in age and adults remain reproductively analysis. Significance is considered only large samples and is thus ineffective in active until death (around 15 years of when discreteness of the population has the subspecific assignment of individual age) (Larivie`re and Walton 1997; Wilson been determined, and the conservation specimens. They also noted that the 11– and Ruff 1999). They generally have one status is considered only when both 14 subspecies of bobcats described to litter per year, ranging in size from one discreteness and significance of the date comprise few realistically to six, with an average of three young population have been established. distinguishable taxa that have any real per litter. However, females are capable Discreteness refers to the isolation of a biological or conservation significance. of producing a second litter if the first population from other members of the Most recently, in a meeting of Mexican one is lost after birth (Anderson and species and is based on two criteria: (1) mammal experts, no consensus was Lovallo 2003). Marked separation from other reached about the taxonomic validity of Censusing of bobcats is difficult populations of the same taxon resulting L. r. escuinapae (Hesiquio Benı´tez-Dı´az, because of their secretive nature, low from physical, physiological, ecological, CONABIO, in litt. 2004). densities, and wide dispersal (Anderson or behavioral factors, including genetic The bobcat is the most widely and Lovallo 2003). Although a wide discontinuity; or (2) populations distributed felid in North America range of techniques has been developed delimited by international boundaries. If (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). The for estimating sizes of bobcat the population is determined to be majority of bobcats are found in the populations, these techniques remain discrete, we determine significance by United States, where they range through imprecise and inaccurate (Anderson and assessing the distinct population a wide variety of habitats, including Lovallo 2003). segment’s importance and/or boreal coniferous and mixed forests in contribution to the species throughout No population estimates are available the north, bottomland hardwood forest its range. Measures of significance may for L. r. escuinapae, but the Mexican and coastal swamp in the southeast, and include, but are not limited to, the Government has stated that this desert and scrubland in the southwest. following: (1) Persistence of the discrete subspecies is widespread and Even within a local area, individual population segment in an ecological numerous, is not specialized in its bobcats usually use a variety of habitats setting unusual or unique for the taxon; habitat requirements, and is highly (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Only large, (2) evidence that loss of the discrete intensively cultivated areas appear to be ecologically adaptable (Graciela de la population segment would result in a ´ ´ unsuitable habitat, presumably because Garza-Garcıa, Direccion General de significant gap in the range of the taxon; ´ ´ of reductions in the availability of prey. Conservacion y Ecologıa de los Recursos (3) evidence that the discrete population Southern Canada represents the Naturales/General Direction of segment represents the only surviving northern limit of bobcat range, with Conservation and Ecology of Natural natural occurrence of the taxon that may deep snow a significant limiting factor Resources, in litt. 1991; Hesiquio be more abundant elsewhere as an (Larivie`re and Walton 1997; Anderson Benı´tez-Dı´az, CONABIO, in litt. 2004). introduced population outside its and Lovallo 2003). In Mexico, bobcats Furthermore, in a recent meeting, historic range; and (4) evidence that the are found in a wide range of habitats, Mexican experts noted that there is no discrete population segment differs including dry scrub, coniferous forests, evidence of population declines in markedly from other populations of the mixed pine (Pinus spp.) and oak central and southern Mexico (one of the taxon in its genetic characteristics. (Quercus spp.) forests, and tropical most disturbed parts of the country) If we determine that a population deciduous forests (Hall and Kelson during the past 25 years (Hesiquio meets the discreteness and significance 1959; Gonzalez and Leal 1984 and Benı´tez-Dı´az, CONABIO, in litt. 2004). criteria for a distinct population Woloszyn and Woloszyn 1982 cited by Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment segment, we evaluate the threats to Nowell and Jackson 1996; Lo´pez- determine if classification as Gonza´lez et al. 1998; Hesiquio Benı´tez- ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as endangered or threatened is warranted Dı´az, CONABIO, in litt. 2004). including any subspecies of fish and based on the Act’s standards. Aside from being habitat generalists, wildlife or plants, and any distinct ‘‘Endangered’’ means the species is in bobcats are opportunistic in their choice population segment of vertebrate fish or danger of extinction throughout all or a of prey (Wilson and Ruff 1999; wildlife that interbreeds when mature significant portion of its range. Anderson and Lovallo 2003). Although (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). We, along with ‘‘Threatened’’ means the species is rabbits predominate in their diet, the National Marine Fisheries Service likely to become endangered within the bobcats feed on a wide range of taxa as (National Oceanic and Atmospheric foreseeable future throughout all or a well as carrion, with some regional Administration—Fisheries), developed significant portion of its range. variations (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). the Policy Regarding the Recognition of In reviewing the taxonomic Over the last century, the bobcat has Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments information on Mexican bobcat, the expanded its range northward as the (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, available information suggests that the mature, continuous coniferous forests 1996) to help us in determining what subspecies designation may not be have been opened by lumbering, fire, constitutes a distinct population valid. Subsequently, we evaluated the and agriculture (Rollings 1945; Banfield segment (DPS). Under this policy, we status of the listed population in its 1974). Similarly, in Mexico, use three elements to assess whether a range within Mexico to determine fragmentation and clearing of tropical population under consideration for whether the listed population met the forests appear to be contributing to the listing may be recognized as a DPS: (1) DPS policy, and if so, whether this range expansion of bobcats (Lo´pez- Discreteness of the population in population of bobcat should remain Gonza´lez et al. 1998), presumably relation to the remainder of the species listed. because of increases in the diversity and to which it belongs; (2) the significance The available information indicates abundance of prey species associated of the population segment to the species that the bobcat population represented with forest edges and the opening of the to which it belongs; and (3) the by L. r. escuinapae is not discrete. The forest canopy. population segment’s conservation population is not delineated by any

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 28898 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

international political boundary. It is B. Overutilization for Commercial, suggests that bobcat populations can contained entirely within Mexico and Recreational, Scientific, or Educational withstand high levels of harvest and its range does not extend to any border Purposes remain stable or increase, provided between Mexico and another country, Human exploitation appears to be the there are moderate levels of particularly the United States. It also predominant cause of bobcat mortality management (Woolf and Hubert 1998). does not represent the only bobcat (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). Little Modeling suggests that harvest levels of population within Mexico and is not information is available on utilization of up to 20% have little impact on bobcat separated by physical, physiological, the species in Mexico, but local hunting populations, depending on prey ecological, or behavioral factors from and trapping for subsistence are availability, environmental conditions, other bobcat populations. As already possible. According to the Mexican poaching levels, disease, and density of stated, the range of L. r. escuinapae Government, its bobcat populations do competitors (Knick 1990). However, overlaps with two other putative not face any conservation problems demand for furs from Europe (the main market for bobcat furs), particularly of subspecies that occur in both Mexico (Hesiquio Benı´tez-Dı´az, CONABIO, in and the United States, and there is no those originating from wild animals, is litt. 2004). Thus, the species is not evidence that it is biologically expected to continue to decline as a legally protected. The harvest of native distinguishable from them. Therefore, result of animal rights campaigns and Mexican species, including the bobcat, the Mexican bobcat does not constitute stricter import regulations imposed by is regulated by the Mexican federal a DPS. the European Union. Thus, over-harvest government through the Ecological for domestic or international trade does Summary of Factors Affecting the Equilibrium Law (Ley General de not appear to represent a threat to the Species Equilibrio Ecolo´gico) and the Wildlife bobcat population in Mexico. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. Law (Ley General de Vida Silvestre) 1531 et seq.) and regulations (Jorge G. Alvarez-Romero, CONABIO, in C. Disease or Predation promulgated to implement the listing litt. 2004). Under the Wildlife Law, Wild bobcats are susceptible to a wide provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) utilization of native species on private, range of diseases and parasites set forth the procedures for deleting communal, state, and federal lands is (Larivie`re and Walton 1997; Anderson species from the Federal lists. A species allowed and restricted to areas referred and Lovallo 2003). Mountain lions, may be determined to be an endangered to as Management Units for the wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs may or threatened species on the basis of one Conservation of Wildlife (Unidades de predate on adult bobcats, and humans or more of the five factors described in Manejo para la Conservacio´n de Vida may depredate bobcats to protect small section 4(a)(1). The same factors are Silvestre [UMAs]). To ensure that the livestock (Larivie`re and Walton 1997; used to determine if a listed species removal of specimens is sustainable, Anderson and Lovallo 2003). However, continues to qualify for listing. These these UMAs must be registered with and at the present time, neither disease nor factors and their application to the have a management plan approved by predation is considered to threaten or Mexican bobcat are as follows: SEMARNAT. However, to date, there endanger the species in any portion of are no UMAs registered for the harvest its range. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, of Mexican bobcats (Leonel Urbano, Modification, or Curtailment of its SEMARNAT, in litt. 2004). D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Habitat or Range International trade in bobcats is Mechanisms Distribution of bobcats may be regulated by CITES. International trade As noted above, Mexico does not negatively or positively affected by in bobcat pelts increased significantly in grant legal protection to bobcats since it habitat modification (Larivie`re and the 1970s after several species of cats considers that the species is abundant Walton 1997; Woolf and Hubert 1998). were placed in Appendix I of CITES and and not at risk. However, it has In a recent meeting convened by the commercial trade of their skins was regulations pertaining to hunting and Mexican Government to evaluate the prohibited (Woolf and Hubert 1998). export of the species (see status of bobcats, Mexican experts noted However, between 1975 and 1992, Overutilization for commercial, that there is no evidence of population commercial trade in bobcat skins was recreational, scientific, or educational declines in central and southern Mexico limited only to specimens originating in purposes above). Although illegal take during the past 25 years, even in heavily Canada and the United States as a result and trade in bobcats probably occur in disturbed areas (Hesiquio Benı´tez-Dı´az, of the inclusion of L. r. escuinapae in Mexico, there is no evidence that such CONABIO, in litt. 2004). To the Appendix I. International trade in activities occur at higher levels than in contrary, the creation of semi-open areas Mexican bobcats was reopened in 1993 the United States or Canada, or that they by fragmentation and clearing of after transfer of L. r. escuinapae from have led to a decline in numbers and/ tropical forests may be contributing to a Appendix I to Appendix II in 1992. or distribution of the species in the range expansion of Mexican bobcats According to the World Conservation country. Thus, the existing regulatory (Lo´pez-Gonza´lez et al. 1998). This is Monitoring Centre (WCMC), between mechanisms appear to be adequate and consistent with information from the 1993 and 2002, only 155 bobcat sufficient to ensure the long-term United States that suggests that bobcats specimens were exported from Mexico survival of the species in Mexico. can easily colonize isolated or over- as trophies (20), live animals (4), skins harvested areas (Anderson and Lovallo (1), and undetermined (130). Thus, even E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 2003), are very tolerant to habitat after transfer of L. r. escuinapae to Aside from the factors described fragmentation and modification caused Appendix II, international trade in above, bobcats may experience mortality by land conversion for agriculture and Mexican bobcats has been limited. due to starvation, vehicular collisions, urbanization (McCord and Cardoza Furthermore, there is no indication of and incidental poisoning (e.g., 1982; Woolf and Hubert 1998; Crooks significant illegal trade. anticoagulant rodenticides and 2002; Riley et al. 2003), and modify Although there is no information contaminants) (Tigas et al. 2002; Cain et their behavior to survive in human available on the impact of commercial al. 2003; Anderson and Lovallo 2003; settings (Tigas et al. 2002; Riley et al. trade on the Mexican bobcat, Riley et al. 2003). However, none of 2003). information from the United States these has led to significant declines in

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 28899

the distribution and abundance of required consultation with the Service’s may lead to a final action that differs bobcats in any portion of their range. Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) from this proposal. under Section 7 of the Act prior to the Summary of Findings Our practice is to make comments, issuance of any permit. including names and home addresses of The Service has reviewed the The Act and its implementing respondents, available for public review information presented in the original regulations set forth a series of during regular business hours. petition, the literature cited in that prohibitions and exceptions that Commenters may request that we petition, all public comments received, generally apply to all endangered withhold their home addresses, and we and other available literature and wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at will honor these requests to the extent information. On the basis of the best 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for allowable by law. In some scientific and commercial information any person subject to the jurisdiction of circumstances, we may also withhold a available, the Service’s 12-month the United States to take (includes commenter’s identity, as allowable by finding is that the petitioned action is harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, law. If you wish us to withhold your warranted. The best available wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or name or address, you must state this information indicates that the Mexican to attempt any of these), within U.S. request prominently at the beginning of bobcat may not constitute a separate territory or on the high seas, import or your comment. However, we will not subspecies and does not constitute a export, ship in interstate commerce in consider anonymous comments. To the distinct population segment (DPS). the course of a commercial activity, or extent consistent with applicable law, Furthermore, despite habitat sell or offer for sale in interstate or we will make all submissions from modification by humans, the bobcat foreign commerce, any listed species. It organizations or businesses, and from remains abundant throughout Mexico also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, individuals identifying themselves as and its range appears to be expanding. carry, transport, or ship any such representatives or officials of Therefore, neither listing of the Mexican wildlife that has been taken illegally. organizations or businesses, available bobcat as endangered, nor its Certain exceptions apply to employees for public comment in their entirety. downlisting to threatened, are or agents of the Service and State Comments and materials received will appropriate. Accordingly, we herein conservation agencies. propose to remove the Mexican bobcat, be available for public inspection, by L. r. escuinapae, from the List of Permits may be issued to carry out appointment, during normal business Endangered and Threatened Wildlife otherwise prohibited activities hours at the above address. promulgated under the Endangered involving endangered wildlife species The Endangered Species Act provides Species Act of 1973, as amended. Public under certain circumstances. for one or more public hearings on this comments on this proposed rule will be Regulations governing permits are proposal, if requested. Requests must be solicited, as will peer review (see codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. received within 45 days of the date of subsequent sections of this FR notice). Such permits are available for scientific the publication of this proposal in the research purposes, for enhancement of Federal Register. Such requests must be Available Conservation Measures the propagation or survival of the made in writing and be addressed to: Conservation measures provided to species, and/or for incidental take in the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, species listed as endangered or course of otherwise lawful activities. 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, threatened under the Endangered Because the bobcat is listed in Arlington, Virginia 22203. Species Act include recognition, Appendix II of CITES, a CITES permit Peer Review recovery actions, requirements for is already required for export from the Federal protection, and prohibitions United States. In addition, shipments In accordance with our policy against certain practices. Recognition originating outside the United States published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR through listing results in public must be accompanied by an export 34270), we will seek expert opinions of awareness, and encourages and results permit or re-export certificate issued by at least three appropriate independent in conservation actions by Federal and the exporting country. Under this specialists regarding this proposed rule. State governments, private agencies and rulemaking, no ESA permit would be The purpose of such review is to ensure groups, and individuals. required for import or export of Mexican that listing decisions are based on Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, bobcats to or from the United States. scientifically sound data, assumptions, and as implemented by regulations at 50 Public Comments Solicited and analysis. We will send copies of CFR 402, requires Federal agencies to this proposed rule immediately evaluate the impact of their actions The Service intends that any final following publication in the Federal within the United States or on the high action resulting from this proposal will Register to these peer reviewers. seas on any species that is proposed or be based on the most accurate and up- listed as endangered or threatened, and to-date information possible. Therefore, National Environmental Policy Act on critical habitat of an endangered or comments or suggestions from the We have determined that threatened species, if any is designated. public, other concerned governmental Environmental Assessments and Because L. r. escuinapae is not native to agencies, the scientific community, Environmental Impact Statements, as the United States, no critical habitat has industry, or any other interested party defined under the authority of the been designated for this taxon, in concerning this proposed rule are National Environmental Policy Act of accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(h). hereby solicited. Comments particularly 1969, need not be prepared in However, permits for import and export, are sought concerning the taxonomy, connection with regulations adopted foreign and interstate commerce, and population status, commercial trade, or pursuant to section 4(a) of the take within the United States are other relevant data concerning any Endangered Species Act of 1973, as currently required. Delisting of the threats to the Mexican bobcat. Final amended. Mexican bobcat under the Act would action on this proposed rule will take eliminate the need for the issuance of into consideration the comments and References Cited ESA permits by the Service’s Division of any additional information received by Allen, J. A. 1903. A new deer and a new Management Authority (DMA), and the the Service, and such communications lynx from the State of Sinaloa, Mexico.

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 28900 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Bulletin of American Museum of Natural Jalisco, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist, States over three decades: 1970s–1990s. History, 19:613–615. 43:103–105. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26:287–293. Anderson, E. M., and M. J. Lovallo. 2003. McCord, C. M., and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx, pages 758–786, in Wild Bobcat and Lynx, pages 728–766, in Wild Author mammals of North America: Biology, mammals of North America: Biology, The primary author of this proposed rule management, and conservation. Second management and economics. J. A. Chapman is Dr. Javier Alvarez, Division of Scientific Edition. G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. John Hopkins Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and J. A. Chapman, eds. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. 1996. Wild Arlington, Virginia 22203. Banfield, A.W. 1974. The mammals of Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Canada. University of Toronto Press, Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, IUCN, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Toronto, Canada. Gland, Switzerland. Endangered and threatened species, Cain, A. T., V. R. Tuovila, D. G. Hewitt, Riley, S. P. D., R. M. Sauvajot, T. K. Fuller, Exports, Imports, Reporting and and M. E. Tewes. 2003. Effects of a highway E. C. York, D. A. Kamradt, C. Bromley, and and mitigation projects on bobcats in R. K. Wayne. 2003. Effects of urbanization recordkeeping requirements, southern Texas. Biological Conservation, and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and Transportation. 114:189–197. coyotes in southern California. Conservation Proposed Regulation Promulgation Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of Biology, 17:566–576. mammalian carnivores to habitat Rollings, C. T. 1945. Habits, food and Accordingly, we hereby propose to fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 16:488– parasites of the bobcat in Minnesota. Journal amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 502. of Wildlife Management, 9:131–145. I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson 1959. The Samson, F. B. 1979. Multivariate analysis mammals of North America. The Ronald of cranial characteristics among bobcats with Regulations, as set forth below: Press Company, New York. a preliminary discussion of the number of Government of the United States. 1992. subspecies, pages 80–86, in Proceedings of PART 17—[AMENDED] Proposal to Transfer Felis rufa escuinapae the 1979 Bobcat Research Conference. P. C. 1. The authority citation for part 17 from Appendix I to Appendix II. Proceedings Escherich and L. Blum, eds. Science and of the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Technology Series 6, National Wildlife continues to read as follows: Parties to CITES, CITES Secretariat, Federation, Washington, D.C. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. Lausanne, Switzerland. Tigas, L. A., D. H. Van Vuren, and R. M. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– Gonzalez, C.B., and C. G. Leal. 1984. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responses of 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. [Forest Mammals of the Mexican Basin.] bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation Programme on Man and the Biosphere and corridors in an urban environment. § 17.11 [Amended] (UNESCO) and Editorial Limusa. Mexico City Biological Conservation, 108:299–306. 2. Amend § 17.11 (h) by removing the (in Spanish). Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The entry ‘‘Bobcat, Mexican’’ under Knick, S. T. 1990. Ecology of bobcats Smithsonian Book of North American relative to exploitation and prey decline in Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, MAMMALS from the List of Endangered southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs, Washington D.C. and Threatened Wildlife. 108:1–42. Woloszyn, D., and B. W. Woloszyn. 1982. Dated: April 27, 2005. Larivie´re, S., and L. R. Walton. 1997. Lynx [The Mammals of Sierra de La Laguna Baja Matt Hogan, rufus. Mammalian Species, 563:1–8. California Sur.] Consejo Nacional de Ciencia Lo´pez-Gonza´lez, C. A., A. Gonza´lez- y Tecnologı´a, Mexico (in Spanish). Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Romero, and J. W. Laundre. 1998. Range Woolf, A., and G. F. Hubert, Jr. 1998. Status [FR Doc. 05–10002 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am] extension of the bobcat (Lynx rufus) in and management of bobcats in the United BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:41 May 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1