20512 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules

business hours in the FCC Reference 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of find that the second petition presents Information Center, Room CY–A257, the Communications Act of 1934, as substantial scientific information that 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), listing the Jackson Lake springsnail, DC 20554 and through the 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia Commission’s Electronic Filing System 303(y), 308, this Notice of Proposed springsnail may be warranted. (ECFS) accessible on the Commission’s Rulemaking is adopted. We are requesting submission of any World Wide Web site, http:// It is further ordered that the new information on the Idaho www.fcc.gov. Commission’s Consumer and springsnail since its original listing as Comments and reply comments must Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference an endangered species in 1992, and include a short and concise summary of Information Center shall send a copy of information on the Jackson Lake the substantive arguments raised in the this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, pleading. Comments and reply including the initial regulatory and Columbia springsnail. Following comments must also comply with § 1.49 flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel this 12-month status review, we will and all other applicable sections of the for Advocacy of the Small Business issue 12-month findings on the petition Commission’s rules. All parties are Administration, in accordance with to delist the Idaho springsnail and the encouraged to utilize a table of contents, section 603(a) of the Regulatory petition to list the Jackson Lake and to include the name of the filing Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, party and the date of the filing on each (1981). and Columbia springsnail. Section page of their submission. We also 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a strongly encourage that parties track the List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 status review of listed species at least organization set forth in this NPRM in Satellites. once every 5 years. We are therefore order to facilitate our internal review Federal Communications Commission. electing to conduct these reviews process. Marlene H. Dortch, simultaneously. At the conclusion of Commenters who file information that these reviews, we will issue the 12- Secretary. they believe is proprietary may request month findings on the petitions, as confidential treatment pursuant to [FR Doc. 05–7791 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am] provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, § 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P and make the requisite recommendation Commenters should file both their under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based original comments for which they on the results of the 5-year review for request confidentiality and redacted DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the Idaho springsnail. comments, along with their request for Fish and Wildlife Service DATES: The finding announced in this confidential treatment. Commenters document was made on April 20, 2005. should not file proprietary information 50 CFR Part 17 To be considered in the 12-month electronically. See Examination of findings for these delisting or listing Current Policy Concerning the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife petitions, or the 5-year review, Treatment of Confidential Information and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a comments and information should be Submitted to the Commission, Report Petition To Delist the Idaho submitted to us by June 20, 2005. and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), Springsnail; 90-Day Finding on a ADDRESSES: Data, information, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd Petition To List the Jackson Lake comments, or questions concerning 20128 (1999). Even if the Commission Springsnail, Harney Lake Springsnail, these petitions and our finding should grants confidential treatment, and Columbia Springsnail; and be submitted to the Field Supervisor, information that does not fall within a Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the Attention: Idaho Springsnail comments, specific exemption pursuant to the Idaho Springsnail Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, must be publicly disclosed pursuant to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, ID 83709. Comments may also be faxed an appropriate request. See 47 CFR Interior. to 208/378–5262, or e-mailed to 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the ACTION: Notice of two 90-day petition [email protected]. Please Commission may grant requests for findings and initiation of status review include ‘‘Idaho Springsnail Comments’’ confidential treatment either for two 12-month findings and one 5- in the subject line for faxes and e-mails. conditionally or unconditionally. As year review. Please submit electronic comments in such, we note that the Commission has ASCII file format, and avoid the use of the discretion to release information on SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a special characters and encryption. The public interest grounds that does fall petitions, supporting data, and within the scope of a FOIA exemption. 90-day finding on a petition to remove (first petition) the Idaho springsnail comments will be available for public Further Information (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis) from the inspection, by appointment, during Federal List of Endangered and normal business hours at the above For further information regarding this address. proceeding, contact Arthur Lechtman, Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) Attorney, Satellite Division, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: International Bureau at (202) 418–0719. (Act), as well as a 90-day finding on a Steve Lysne, Fish and Wildlife Information regarding this proceeding petition to add (second petition) the Biologist, at the above address and others may also be found on the Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta), (telephone 208/378–5243 or e-mail _ Commission’s Web site at http:// Harney Lake springsnail (P. steve [email protected]). www.fcc.gov. hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (P. spp. A) to the List as endangered or Ordering Clauses threatened. We find the first petition Background Accordingly, It is ordered that, presents substantial scientific Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered pursuant to the authority contained in information that delisting the Idaho Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), springsnail may be warranted. We also U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act) requires that

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:52 Apr 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 20513

we make a finding on whether a petition Our findings are that the petitions States, including parts of the Snake- to list, delist, or reclassify a species state a reasonable case for delisting (first Columbia River basin and several closed presents substantial scientific or petition) and listing (second petition) on basins in southeastern Oregon. Habitats commercial data indicating that the their face based on the taxonomic include springs and spring-fed streams petitioned action may be warranted. To information that is presented in the as well as large rivers’’ Hershler and Liu the maximum extent practicable, we petitions. Thus, in these findings, we (2004). must make the finding within 90 days express no view as to the ultimate issue On August 5, 2004, we received a of our receipt of the petition, and must of whether the Idaho springsnail should petition from Dr. Peter Bowler, the promptly publish the finding in the be delisted, or whether the Jackson Lake Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Federal Register. If we find substantial springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, Center for Biological Diversity, Center information exists to support the and Columbia springsnail should be for Native Ecosystems, Western petitioned action, we are required to listed. We can come to a conclusion on Watersheds Project, and The Xerces promptly commence a status review of those issues only after a more thorough Society, requesting that the Jackson the species (50 CFR 424.14). review of the species’ status. In that Lake springsnail, Harney Lake ‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in review, which will take approximately 9 springsnail, and Columbia springsnail 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of more months, we will perform a be added to the List. This listing information that would lead a rigorous critical analysis of the best petition cites habitat loss and reasonable person to believe that the available scientific information, not just degradation from spring development, measure proposed in the petition may the information in the petition. We will domestic livestock grazing, groundwater be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not ensure that the data used to make our withdrawal, water pollution, dams, prove that the petitioned action is determination as to the status of the predation, the introduction and spread warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’ species is consistent with the Act and of nonnative species, and inadequate finding; instead, the key consideration the Information Quality Act. Federal and State regulatory in evaluating a petition for We listed the Idaho springsnail as mechanisms as threats to the continued substantiality involves demonstration of endangered on December 14, 1992 (57 existence of these other three the reliability and adequacy of the FR 59244). We determined that the free- northwestern springsnail species. The information supporting the action flowing, cool water environments listing petition also cites Hershler and advocated by the petition. required by the Idaho springsnail were Liu (2004) and their suggested The factors for listing, delisting, or altered by deteriorating water quality taxonomic revision, and acknowledges reclassifying species are described at 50 due to reservoir development, river that the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake CFR 424.11. We may delist a species diversions, and habitat modification (57 springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, only if the best scientific and FR 59244). The Idaho springsnail was Columbia springsnail may be one commercial data available substantiate described as existing in the main-stem species (Pyrgulopsis robusta). However, that it is neither endangered nor Snake River from the C.J. Strike the listing petition contends that threatened. Delisting may be warranted Reservoir (river mile 518) to Bancroft Hershler and Liu (2004) overlooked key as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) Springs (river mile 553), a nearly 80 differences between the four species, recovery, and/or (3) a determination that percent reduction from the species’ and states that whether assessed the original data used for classification historic distribution in the Snake River individually or as one species, all four of the species as endangered or based on the existing literature (Frest springsnails need the protection of the threatened were in error. 1991). We published the Snake River Act. In making these findings for the Idaho Aquatic Species Recovery Plan, which Hershler and Liu (2004) suggested springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis), included the Idaho springsnail, in 1995. three lines of evidence to support Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta), Critical habitat has not been designated changing the taxonomic classification of Harney Lake springsnail (P. for the Idaho springsnail. the Idaho springsnail. Morphology, hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail mitochondrial DNA sequences, and (P. spp. A), we rely on information Review of Petitions nuclear DNA sequences were used to provided by the petitioners and evaluate On June 28, 2004, we received a evaluate the relationship between that information in accordance with 50 petition from the State of Idaho, Office previously recognized species in the CFR 424.14(b). The content of these of Species Conservation, and the Idaho subgenus. Results from the morphology findings summarize that information Power Company requesting that the analysis found a significant difference included in the petition and that which Idaho springsnail be removed from the between the ratio of shell height to was available to us at the time of the List based on a taxonomic reappraisal height of body whorl between the Idaho petition review. Our review for the that indicated it is no longer a separate springsnail and all other species tested. purposes of a 90-day finding under species. The delisting petition cites a However, several other morphological section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and recent peer-reviewed article, published metrics, including the position of the § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited in The Veliger, titled ‘‘Taxonomic callus (hardened tissue) on the to a determination of whether the Reappraisal of Species Assigned to the operculum (serves as a cover for the information in the petition meets the North American Freshwater Gastropod opening in the shell), the shape of the ‘‘substantial scientific information’’ Subgenus Natricola (Rissooidea: central cusp of the central teeth, the threshold. We do not conduct additional Hydrobiidae)’’ (Hershler and Liu 2004). number of cusps on central teeth, research at this point, nor do we subject Hershler and Liu (2004) evaluated the notching of inner marginal teeth, the petition to rigorous critical review. taxonomic status of the Idaho number of cusps on outer marginal Rather, as the Act and regulations springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, teeth, the male penial features, and contemplate, at the 90-day finding, the Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia female genitalia did not differ key consideration in evaluating a springsnail and recommended placing substantially. The genetic data found petition involves demonstration of the all four species into P. robusta very little variation in the partial reliability and adequacy of the (Hydrobiidae: Walker 1908). The cytochrome c oxidase (COI) gene information supporting the action distribution of P. robusta is ‘‘broadly (mitochondrial DNA). Differences advanced by the petition. ranging in the northwestern United ranged from 0.0–0.8 percent (0–5 base

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:52 Apr 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 20514 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules

pairs) within the Natricola subgenus to Five Year Review genetics, and taxonomy, specifically 2.6–6.9 percent (16–43 base pairs) with Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires regarding any key differences between outgroups in the genus Pyrgulopsis. that we conduct a review of listed the four subspecies; This suggests that genetic variation species at least once every 5 years. We (2) Habitat conditions, including but within Natricola differed little are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to not limited to amount, distribution, and compared to genetic variation between determine, on the basis of such a suitability; Natricola and other species of review, whether or not any species (3) Conservation measures that have Pyrgulopsis. In addition, differences in should be removed from the List been implemented that benefit the the internal transcribed spacer (ITS–1) (delisted), or reclassified from species; sequences (nuclear DNA) within the endangered to threatened, or threatened (4) Threat status and trends; and Natricola subgenus were substantially to endangered. Our regulations at 50 (5) Other new information, data, or smaller (0.0–0.6 percent) compared to CFR 424.21 require that we publish a corrections, including but not limited to differences among other congeners (5.9– notice in the Federal Register taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, 20.4 percent). These two lines of announcing those species currently identification of erroneous information evidence suggest that differences among under active review. This notice contained in the List, and improved the four species are very small announces our active review of the analytical methods. compared to differences between other Idaho springsnail. If you wish to comment on either of recognized taxa within the larger genus. the 12-month findings or 5-year review, Public Information Solicited The authors then contend that ‘‘three you may submit your comments and independent data sets (morphology, We are requesting information on the materials to the Field Supervisor, Snake mitochondrial, and nuclear DNA Idaho springsnail for both the 12-month River Fish and Wildlife Office (see sequences) congruently suggest that finding and the 5-year review, as we are ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to these four Natricola snails do not merit conducting these reviews make comments, including names and recognition as distinct species according simultaneously. We are also requesting home addresses of respondents, to various currently applied concepts of information on the Jackson Lake available for public review during this taxonomic rank.’’ springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, regular business hours. Respondents and Columbia springsnail. may request that we withhold a In addition to the taxonomic revision, When we make a finding that Hershler and Liu (2004) noted that the respondent’s identity, as allowable by substantial information exists to law. If you wish to withhold your name Jackson Lake springsnail was a former indicate that listing or delisting a Service candidate for threatened or or address, you must state this request species may be warranted, we are prominently at the beginning of your endangered species status. They state required to promptly commence a that it may be currently threatened by comment. However, we will not review of the status of the species. To consider anonymous comments. To the the presence of the exotic New Zealand ensure that the status review is mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) extent consistent with applicable law, complete and based on the best we will make all submissions from in the Pacific Northwest. Also, Hershler available scientific and commercial and Liu (2004) noted that the Harney organizations or businesses, and from information, we are soliciting any individuals identifying themselves as Lake springsnail is designated as a additional information, comments, or critically imperiled species by the representatives or officials of suggestions on the Idaho springsnail, organizations or businesses, available Oregon Natural Heritage Program, and Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake the middle Snake River population of for public inspection in their entirety. springsnail, and Columbia springsnail Comments and materials received will the Idaho springsnail is genetically from the public, State and Federal isolated from other populations. be available for public inspection, by agencies, tribes, the scientific appointment, during normal business Finding community, industry or environmental hours at the above address. entities, or any other interested parties. We have reviewed the delisting and Information sought includes any data References Cited listing petitions and their supporting regarding interactions with other A complete list of all references cited documents, as well as other information populations, historical and current in this finding is available, upon in our files. We find that the delisting distribution, biology and ecology, request, from the Snake River Fish and petition and other information in our ongoing conservation measures for the Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). files present substantial information that species or its habitat, and threats to the delisting the Idaho springsnail may be species or its habitat. We also request Author warranted. We also find that the listing information regarding the adequacy of The primary author of this document petition and other information in our existing regulatory mechanisms. is Steve Lysne (see ADDRESSES section). files present substantial information that The 5-year review considers all new listing the Jackson Lake springsnail, information available at the time of the Authority Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia review. This review will consider the The authority for this action is section springsnail may be warranted. We are best scientific and commercial data 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 initiating a status review of all four regarding the Idaho springsnail that has (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). species. We will issue 12-month become available since the current Dated: April 7, 2005. findings in accordance with section listing determination or most recent 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act as to whether or not status review, such as: Marshall P. Jones, Jr., delisting is warranted (first petition) (1) Species biology, including but not Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. and/or whether or not listing is limited to population trends, [FR Doc. 05–7640 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am] warranted (second petition). distribution, abundance, demographics, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:52 Apr 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1