44544 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to Federal Communications Commission. complete file for this finding is available filing comments with the FCC, John A. Karousos, for public inspection, by appointment, interested parties should serve the Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media during normal business hours at the petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford, Bureau. above address. 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas [FR Doc. 05–14960 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 75205. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Heather Barnes, Botanist, (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330). Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 418–2180. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Fish and Wildlife Service Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. fishhook cactus) is a small barrel shaped 05–230, adopted July 13, 2005, and 50 CFR Part 17 cactus, with short central spines. Mature adults produce vessel-shaped, cream- released July 15, 2005. The complete Endangered and Threatened Wildlife text of this decision may also be and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a colored flowers with magenta filaments. purchased from the Commission’s Petition To Delist Sclerocactus Wright fishhook cactus is known to duplicating contractor, Best Copy and wrightiae (Wright Fishhook Cactus) occur across portions of four counties in Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., and Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review Utah. It has been found on soil Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, formations, such as Emery sandstone, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Mancos shale, Dakota sandstone, www.BCPIWEB.com. This document Interior. Morrison, Summerville, Curtis, Entrada does not contain proposed information ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition sandstone, Carmel, Moenkopi, and collection requirements subject to the finding and initiation of a 5-year status alluvium (Neese 1987; Clark and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, review. Groebner 2003). Vegetation associations Public Law 104–13. In addition, include semi-barren sites within desert therefore, it does not contain any SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and scrub or open pinyon juniper woodland proposed information collection burden Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a communities at 1,300 to 2,300 meters ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 90-day finding for a petition to remove (4,200 to 7,600 feet) in elevation. On than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Sclerocactus wrightiae (Wright fishhook October 11, 1979, we listed Wright Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of cactus), throughout its range, from the fishhook cactus as an endangered 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. Federal list of threatened and species (44 FR 58866) based on its 3506(c)(4). endangered species, pursuant to the limited population size and distribution Provisions of the Regulatory Endangered Species Act of 1973, as as well as known and potential threats Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to amended (Act). We reviewed the from collection, mineral resource this proceeding. petition and supporting documentation exploration and extraction activities, Members of the public should note and find that there is not substantial and off-road vehicle (ORV) use. that from the time a Notice of Proposed information indicating that delisting of Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires Rule Making is issued until the matter Wright fishhook cactus may be that we make a finding on whether a is no longer subject to Commission warranted. Therefore, we will not be petition to list, delist, or reclassify a consideration or court review, all ex initiating a further 12-month status species presents substantial scientific or parte contacts are prohibited in review in response to this petition. commercial information indicating that Commission proceedings, such as this However, we are initiating a 5-year the petitioned action may be warranted. one, which involve channel allotments. review of this species under section ‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA that will consider 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of governing permissible ex parte contacts. new information that has become information that would lead a For information regarding proper available since the listing of the species. reasonable person to believe that the filing procedures for comments, see 47 This will provide the States, Tribes, measure proposed in the petition may CFR 1.415 and 1.420. other agencies, university researchers, be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not and the public an opportunity to List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 prove that the petitioned action is provide information on the status of the warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’ Radio, Radio broadcasting. species. We are requesting any new finding; instead, the key consideration For the reasons discussed in the information on the Wright fishhook in evaluating a petition for preamble, the Federal Communications cactus that has become available since substantiality involves demonstration of Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR its original listing as an endangered the reliability and adequacy of the part 73 as follows: species in 1979. information supporting the action DATES: The finding announced in this advocated by the petition. We do not PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST document was made on August 3, 2005. SERVICES conduct additional research at this To be considered in the 5-year review, point, nor do we subject the petition to 1. The authority citation for part 73 comments and information should be rigorous critical review. If we find continues to read as follows: submitted to us by October 3, 2005. substantial information exists to support Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. ADDRESSES: Data, information, written the petitioned action, we are required to comments and materials, or questions promptly commence a status review of § 73.202 [Amended] concerning this petition finding and 5- the species (50 CFR 424.14). 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM year review should be submitted to the On February 3, 1997, we received a Allotments under Missouri is amended Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological petition from the National Wilderness by adding Auxvasse, Channel 235A, by Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Institute, to remove Wright fishhook removing Channel 234C and by adding Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite cactus from the List of Endangered and Channel 234C0 at Crestwood. 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. The Threatened Wildlife and Plants on the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:21 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 44545

basis of ‘‘original data error.’’ To the recovery plan because complete Conservation Status maximum extent practicable, we are to inventory and population counts had In addition to discussing the make the finding within 90 days of our not been conducted, casting doubt on distribution, status and trends of the receipt of the petition, and must the figure’s accuracy (USFWS 1985). species, the petition also asserts that promptly publish the finding in the Based on recent actual counts of ‘‘other new scientific information Federal Register. On June 29, 1998, we individual cacti and recent population gathered since the time of listing already provided a written response to the estimates, the population total may in the possession of the USFWS’’ petitioner explaining our inability to act range from 4,500 to 21,000 individuals indicates that the species should be upon the petition due to the low priority (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; delisted. Because the ESA requires an assigned to delisting petitions in our Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark analysis of the threats faced by the Listing Priority Guidance Fiscal Year and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; species before delisting can occur, we 1997 (61 FR 64475). That guidance Clark 2005 unpublished excel data; Kass consider that the petition is referencing identified delisting activities as the 1990; Neese 1987). The high end of this information affecting these threats. lowest priority (Tier 4). Due to the large range is based on estimates of Therefore, what follows below is a number of higher priority listing actions questionable reliability. For example, at preliminary review of the factors and a limited listing budget, we did not one site 18 cacti were counted, but the affecting this species. conduct any delisting activities during estimated population suggested there the Fiscal Year 1997. On May 8, 1998, may be as many as 500 individuals (Heil A. The Present or Threatened we published the 1998 and 1999 Listing 1994). At another site, 384 plants were Destruction, Modification, or Priority Guidance in the Federal counted, but the population was Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Register (63 FR 25502) and, again, estimated to potentially include as The 1979 listing included mineral placed delisting activities at the bottom many as 10,000 to 15,000 cacti (Heil exploration, ORV use, and development of our priority list. Beginning in 1999, 1994). Thus, the Service considers the for a power generation station as threats work on delisting (including delisting high end of this range an overestimate. to the species’ habitat and range (44 FR petition findings) was included in the From 1999 to 2002, an interagency 58866). Additionally, the best scientific line item for the recovery program rare plant team (Clark 2002a) revisited and commercial information currently instead of the listing program (64 FR 104 known Wright fishhook cacti sites available suggests that direct mortality 27596). Since 1999, higher priority work where at least 10 years had passed since has been caused by cattle trampling and has further precluded our ability to act the last survey, as documented by Neese crushing by ORVs, and that habitat upon this petition. (1987) and Kass (1990). Sixty-five disturbance has been caused by cattle Review of the Petition percent of these sites (68 sites) had use, ORV activities, hiking and horseback riding, dirt bike use, non- At the time of listing, in 1979, 5 fewer or no cacti when revisited, while 35 percent (36 sites) had the same or a designated parking, road grading, and scattered cactus populations, which group camping when conducted in non- included at least 14 occupied sites, were greater number of individuals present (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; designated areas (Clark and Groebner known to occur in Emery and Wayne 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, Counties, Utah, but the plant was not Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; 2001b). The petition provided no abundant at any 1 location (44 FR information addressing these factors. 58866: Neese 1986). The petition cited unpublished excel data Clark 2005, Kass our 1990 Report to Congress: 1990, Neese 1987). Based on B. Overutilization for Commercial, Endangered and Threatened Species demographic monitoring information Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Recovery Program (1990 Report to collected from 1993 to 2000, Kass Purposes Congress), which said, ‘‘Population and (2001a; Intermountain Ecosystems 2003) The original listing stated that ‘‘one of habitat inventories have identified a found—(1) No sizable populations with the major factors in the decline of this greater abundance, range distribution, adults larger than 9.0 centimeters (3.5 species at present is field collection by and additional populations of this inches) wide, which represent the most amateur and professional cactus fanciers species than originally known (USFWS reproductive size-class; (2) that for commercial and hobby purposes. 1990).’’ By July 1990, inventories by populations showed low recruitment These fanciers could quickly reduce Neese (1987) and Kass (1990) increased with a mortality-to-recruitment ratio of known populations if protective the known distribution within Emery 2.5 to 1; and (3) the species was measures are not initiated’’ (44 FR and Wayne Counties by documenting experiencing a slow decline. Overall, 58866). Documented illegal collection 212 occupied sites, but provided no the species appears to be experiencing activities continue to be a significant population estimate. As of April 2005, a population recession (Kass, pers. factor negatively affecting reproduction inventories have documented Wright comm. 1997; Kass, pers. comm. 2004). and population structure (Clark and fishhook cactus in portions of Utah’s Documented declines appear to be Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; Kaas Emery County, Sevier County, Wayne linked to—(1) Changes in reproductive 2001a, 2001b). The petition provided no County, and Garfield County at a total age-class structure (primarily influenced information addressing this factor. of 264 sites (Neese 1987; Kass 1990; San by cactus borer beetle (Moneilma Juan College 1994; Clark 2001, 2002a, semipunctatum) and collection C. Disease or Predation 2002b; Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; activities); (2) direct mortality (the The original listing suggested disease Clark and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. documented causes of which include and predation were not factors 2004). cactus borer beetle predation, cattle impacting the extinction probability of At the time of listing, a population trampling, and crushing by ORVs); and Wright fishhook cactus (44 FR 58866). estimate was not available. The 1982 (3) habitat disturbance (including cattle The best scientific and commercial Technical Review Draft for the use, ORV activities, hiking and horse information currently available suggests Sclerocactus wrightiae Recovery Plan trails, dirt bikes, non-designated predation by the cactus borer beetle, provided a population estimate of 2,000 parking, road grading, and group which may select for larger adult cacti, individuals (USFWS 1982). This camping) (Clark and Groebner 2003; is causing direct mortality and affecting estimate was not included in the final Clark et al. 2004; Kaas 2001a, 2001b). population age-class structure (Clark

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:21 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1 44546 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules

and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; cactus are known to occur today governmental agencies, Tribes, the Kaas 2001a, 2001b). The petition compared to available information at the scientific community, industry, provided no information addressing this time of the 1979 listing, recent site- environmental entities, or any other factor. specific population threats and declines interested parties. Information sought also have been documented (Kass includes any data regarding historical D. The Inadequacy of Existing 2001a; Kass 2001b; Clark and Groebner Regulatory Mechanisms and current distribution, biology and 2003; Clark et al. 2004). The petitioner ecology, ongoing conservation measures The original listing suggested that stated that ‘‘other new scientific for the species, and threats to the Utah State law provided no protections information gathered since the time of species. We also request information for the species (44 FR 58866); the listing which is in possession of the regarding the adequacy of existing Convention on International Trade in Service’’ supports delisting; however, regulatory mechanisms. Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and the petition did not identify this new The 5-year review will consider the Flora (CITES) provided protection scientific information. In addition, the best scientific and commercial data against international trade, but ‘‘[did] petitioner did not include any detailed regarding the Wright fishhook cactus not help regarding internal trade’’ (44 narrative justification for the delisting of that has become available since the FR 58866); and ‘‘Bureau of Land Wright fishhook cactus or provide current listing determination or most Management (BLM) regulations offer information regarding the status of the recent status review, such as: some protection to vegetative resources, species over a significant portion of its (1) Species biology, including but not but do not address Wright fishhook range or include any persuasive limited to population trends, cactus directions’’ (44 FR 58866). The supporting documentation for the distribution, abundance, demographics, petition did not discuss the adequacy of recommended administrative measure genetics, and taxonomy; regulatory measures. to delist the species. After this review (2) Habitat conditions, including but E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors and evaluation, we find the petition not limited to amount, distribution, and Affecting Its Continued Existence does not present substantial information suitability; to indicate that delisting the Wright (3) Conservation measures that have The original listing suggested that the fishhook cactus may be warranted at been implemented that benefit the species was ‘‘extremely limited in range this time. species; * * *, extremely vulnerable to any sort (4) Threat status and trends; and of disturbance and could be completely Five-Year Review (5) Other new information or data. extirpated by even the most trivial Under the Act, the Service maintains If you wish to comment on the 5-year mishap’’ (44 FR 58866). The petition a List of Endangered and Threatened review, you may submit information to cites our 1990 Recovery Report to Wildlife and Plant species at 50 CFR the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Congress, which suggested ‘‘a greater 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for Services Office (see ADDRESSES). Our abundance, range distribution, and plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act practice is to make comments, including additional populations of this species requires that we conduct a review of names and home addresses of than originally known’’ (USFWS 1990). listed species at least once every 5 years. respondents, available for public review Individual sites remain vulnerable to We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to during regular business hours. extirpation through disturbance. Many determine on the basis of such a review, Respondents may request that we of the known Wright fishhook cactus whether or not any species should be withhold a respondent’s identity, as sites are small in number (less than 25 removed from the List (delisted), or allowable by law. If you wish to plants) and widely separated in distance reclassified from endangered to withhold your name or address, you (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; threatened or threatened to endangered. must state this request prominently at Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark Delisting a species must be supported the beginning of your comment. and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; by the best scientific and commercial However, we will not consider Kass 1990; Neese 1987). Across a 10- data available and only considered if anonymous comments. To the extent year period, 65 percent of documented such data substantiate that the species is consistent with applicable law, we will populations experienced a decline or neither endangered nor threatened for make all submissions from extirpation (Clark 2001, 2002a, 2002b; one or more of the following reasons: (1) organizations or businesses, and from Intermountain Ecosystems 2002; Clark The species is considered extinct; (2) individuals identifying themselves as and Groebner 2003; Clark et al. 2004; the species is considered to be representatives or officials of Clark 2005 unpublished excel data; Kass recovered; and/or (3) the original data organizations or businesses, available 1990; Neese 1987). Based on the above available when the species was listed, or for public inspection in their entirety. discussion, we do not believe that the the interpretation of such data, were in Comments and materials received will petition has presented substantial error. Any change in Federal be available for public inspection, by scientific information to indicate that classification would require a separate appointment, during normal business other natural or manmade factors no rulemaking process. Our regulations at hours at the above address. longer threaten the continued existence 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish of Wright fishhook cactus throughout all a notice in the Federal Register References Cited or a significant portion of the species’ announcing those species currently A complete list of all references cited range. under active review. This notice herein is available upon request from announces our initiation of a 5-year the Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and Finding review of Wright fishhook cactus. Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition and Information Solicited Author evaluated that information in relation to To ensure that the 5-year review is The primary author of this document other pertinent literature and complete, we are soliciting any is Heather Barnes, Botanist, Utah information available in our files. additional information, comments, or Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Although greater population numbers suggestions on Wright fishhook cactus Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES and distribution of Wright fishhook from the public, other concerned section).

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:21 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 44547

Authority: The authority for this action is criteria to the Arizona pygmy-owl. (3) Additional information related to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Based on our assessment, we do not current versus historical range, current amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). believe that the available information distribution, genetic diversity, and Dated: July 19, 2005. and science satisfy the criteria to population sizes of the Arizona pygmy- Marshall P. Jones, Jr., indicate that pygmy-owls in Arizona are owl population and its contribution to Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. an entity that qualifies for listing under the taxon as a whole; [FR Doc. 05–15301 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am] the Act. Accordingly, we propose to (4) Status of the pygmy-owl in Mexico, particularly threats to BILLING CODE 4310–55–P remove the Arizona population of pygmy-owls from the list in 50 CFR populations or habitat; and 17.11, remove the critical habitat (5) Information related to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR designation for this population at 50 discreteness, significance, and CFR 17.95, and withdraw our November conservation status of any potential Fish and Wildlife Service 27, 2002, proposed rule to designate pygmy-owl DPS. new critical habitat. We will take into consideration the 50 CFR Part 17 comments and any additional DATES: We will accept comments until information received, and such RIN 1018–AU22; 1018–AI48 October 3, 2005. Public hearing requests communications may lead to a final must be received by September 19, determination that differs from this Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2005. and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove proposal. ADDRESSES: the Arizona Distinct Population Comments and materials Background Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous concerning the proposed delisting of the Arizona DPS of the pygmy-owl should The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Pygmy-Owl From the Federal List of (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona (pygmy-owl) is in the order Strigiformes Proposal To Withdraw the Proposed and the family Strigidae. It is a small Rule To Designate Critical Habitat Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, bird, approximately 17 centimeters (cm) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona 85021–4951. Written (6.75 inches (in)) long. Males average 62 Interior. comments may also be sent by facsimile grams (g) (2.2 ounces (oz)), and females ACTION: Proposed rule. to 602/242–2513. Comments and average 75 g (2.6 oz). The pygmy-owl is materials received will be available for reddish brown overall, with a cream- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and public inspection, by appointment, colored belly streaked with reddish Wildlife Service (Service), under the during normal business hours at the brown. Color may vary, with some authority of the Endangered Species Act above address. individuals being more grayish brown. of 1973 (Act), as amended, propose to The crown is lightly streaked, and a pair FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: remove the Arizona distinct population of black/dark brown spots outlined in segment (DPS) of the cactus ferruginous Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor (see white occur on the nape suggesting pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum ADDRESSES) (telephone 602/242–0210; ‘‘eyes.’’ This species lacks ear tufts, and cactorum) (pygmy-owl) from the Federal facsimile 602/242–2513). the eyes are yellow. The tail is relatively List of Endangered and Threatened SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: long for an owl and is colored reddish Wildlife and accordingly to eliminate its Public Comments Solicited brown with darker brown bars designated critical habitat. The Arizona (Proudfoot and Johnson 2000). The DPS of the pygmy-owl was listed as We intend that any final action pygmy-owl is primarily diurnal (active endangered on March 10, 1997 (62 FR resulting from this proposal will be during daylight) with crepuscular 10730), and critical habitat was based on the best available information. (active at dawn and dusk) tendencies. designated on July 12, 1999 (64 FR We have gathered and evaluated new They can be heard making a long, 37419). On January 9, 2001, a coalition information related to the pygmy-owl monotonous series of short, repetitive of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the that has become available since the 1997 notes, mostly during the breeding District Court of Arizona challenging the listing and are seeking any other pygmy- season (Proudfoot and Johnson 2000). validity of our listing of the pygmy-owl owl information. We will continue to The pygmy-owl is one of four as a DPS and the designation of its support surveys of pygmy-owls in subspecies of the ferruginous pygmy- critical habitat. After the District Court Mexico to further elucidate the status of owl. It occurs from lowland central of Arizona remanded the designation of the species in Mexico, and to identify Arizona south through western Mexico critical habitat (National Association of threats to the population. to the States of Colima and Michoacan, Home Builders et al. v. Norton, Civ.–00– We are soliciting comments or and from southern Texas south through 0903–PHX–SRB), we proposed a new suggestions from the public, other the Mexican States of Tamaulipas and critical habitat designation on concerned governmental agencies, the Nuevo Leon. Only the Arizona November 27, 2002 (67 FR 7102). scientific community, industry, or any population of the pygmy-owl is listed as Ultimately, as a result of this lawsuit, other interested party concerning this an endangered species (62 FR 10730; the United States Court of Appeals for proposed rule. We are particularly March 10, 1997). the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on interested in comments concerning: Historically, pygmy-owls were August 19, 2003, stating that ‘‘the FWS (1) Biological, genetic, and/or recorded in association with riparian acted arbitrarily and capriciously in morphological data related to the woodlands in central and southern designating the Arizona pygmy-owl taxonomic classification of the pygmy- Arizona (Bendire 1892; Gilman 1909; population as a DPS under the DPS owl throughout its current range; Johnson et al. 1987). Plants present in Policy’’ (National Association of Home (2) The location and characteristics of these riparian communities included Builders v. Norton, 340 F. 3d 835, 852 any additional populations not cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (9th Cir. 2003)). In light of the Ninth considered in previous work that might (Salix spp.), ash (Fraxinus velutina), and Circuit’s opinion, we have reassessed have bearing on the current population hackberry (Celtis spp.). However, recent the application of the DPS significance status; records have documented that pygmy-

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:21 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM 03AUP1