Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 31663 solely on a determination of whether the Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations 43 CFR Part 3100 50 CFR Part 17 and whether the other requirements of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have [WO±610±4110±02 1A] been met. and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Swift Fox as RIN 1004±AC26 Endangered National Environmental Policy Act Promotion of Development, Reduction AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, No environmental impact statement is of Royalty on Heavy Oil Interior. required for this rule since section ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, finding. 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] Interior. provides that agency decisions on SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed State regulatory program ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of reopening of comment period. (Service) announces a 12-month finding provisions do not constitute major for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes Federal actions within the meaning of SUMMARY: On April 10, 1995, the Bureau velox) under the Endangered Species section 102(2)(C) of the National of Land Management (BLM) published Act of 1973, as amended. After review Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. in the Federal Register (60 FR 18081) a of all available scientific and 4332(2)(C)). notice of proposed rulemaking to amend commercial information, the Service the regulations related to the waiver, finds that listing this species is Paperwork Reduction Act suspension, or reduction of rental, warranted but precluded by other higher royalty, or minimum royalty on ``heavy priority actions to amend the List of This rule does not contain oil'' (crude oil with a gravity of less than Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information collection requirements that 20 degrees). The notice allowed a and Plants. require approval by OMB under the comment period of 60 days, closing on DATES: The finding announced in this Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. June 9, 1995. document was made on June 12, 1995. 3507 et seq.). The Department of Energy (DOE) is ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or currently developing new information questions concerning this petition Regulatory Flexibility Act on the potential impacts of the proposed should be submitted to the Field rule. DOE is focusing particularly on the Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 420 South Garfield The Department of the Interior has effects of raising the qualifying crude oil Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, South Dakota determined that this rule will not have gravity to more than 20 degrees. In order 57501±5408. The petition finding, a significant economic impact on a to allow all interested parties sufficient supporting data, and comments are substantial number of small entities time to review the new DOE available for public inspection, by under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 information, BLM is reopening the appointment, during normal business U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal comment period for an additional 30 hours at the above address. which is the subject of this rule is based days. Information on the DOE findings upon corresponding Federal regulations is available from Dr. John Bebout, at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for which an economic analysis was address shown below under FOR Donald R. (Pete) Gober, Field FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. prepared and certification made that Supervisor, at the above address, such regulations would not have a DATES: Comments should be submitted telephone (605) 224±8693. significant economic effect upon a by July 17, 1995. Comments received or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: postmarked after the above date may not substantial number of small entities. Background Accordingly, this rule will ensure that be considered in the decisionmaking existing requirements previously process on the final rule. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended promulgated by OSM will be ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to implemented by the State. In making the Director (140), Bureau of Land (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, determination as to whether this rule Management, Room 5555, 1849 C Street, for any petition to revise the List of would have a significant economic NW., Washington, DC 20240. Comments Endangered and Threatened Wildlife impact, the Department relied upon the can also be sent to and Plants that contains substantial data and assumptions for the [email protected]. Please scientific and commercial information, corresponding Federal regulations. include ``attn: AC26'' and your name the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and return address in your internet make a finding within 12 months of the List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935 message. Comments will be available for date of the receipt of the petition on public review at the above address whether the petitioned action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) Intergovernmental relations, Surface during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday. warranted but precluded from mining, Underground mining. immediate proposal by other pending FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. proposals of higher priority. Notice of Dated: June 8, 1995. John W. Bebout, Bureau of Land the finding is to be published promptly Management (310), 1849 C Street, NW., in the Federal Register. This notice Allen D. Klein, Washington, DC 20240. (202) 452±0340. meets that requirement for a 12-month Micheal A. Ferguson, Regional Director, Appalachian Regional finding made earlier for the petition Coordinating Center. Acting Assistant Director, Resource Use and discussed below. Information contained Protection. in this notice is a summary of the [FR Doc. 95±14764 Filed 6±15±95; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 95±14785 Filed 6±15±95; 8:45 am] information in the 12-month finding, BILLING CODE 4310±05±M BILLING CODE 4130±84±P which is the Service's decision 31664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules document. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires to controversy over its taxonomy; Texas. There is limited but encouraging that petitions for which the requested however, the designation as endangered evidence that some reoccupation of its action is found to be warranted but in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July former range may be occurring in precluded should be treated as through 25, 1980). Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, resubmitted on the date of such finding, In 1970, the Service listed the and Wyoming. New Mexico also i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be northern swift fox as endangered (35 FR appears to contain localized populations made within 12 months. 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation distributed throughout reduced portions A petition dated February 22, 1992, was removed in the United States due of the State's historical range. However, from Mr. Jon C. Sharps was received by to controversy over its taxonomy; there has been no biological or scientific the Service on March 3, 1992. The however, the designation as endangered evidence presented to the Service petition requested the Service to list the in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July during the extended status review swift fox (Vulpes velox) as an 25, 1980). period to confirm the viability or endangered species in the northern The Service reviewed information stability of any of these populations. portion of its range, if not the entire regarding the status of the swift fox Seventy to 75 percent of remaining swift range. A 90-day finding was made by throughout its range. Historically, the fox populations are believed to reside the Service that the petition presented swift fox was considered abundant on private lands, with the remaining substantial information indicating that throughout the Great Plains and the populations on Federal lands belonging the requested action may be warranted. Prairie Provinces of Canada (Hall and to the U.S. forest Service, the National The 90-day finding was announced in Kelson 1959; Egoscue 1979; Zumbaugh Park Service, the Bureau of Land the Federal Register on June 1, 1994 (59 and Choates 1985; U.S. Fish and Management, and the Department of the FR 28328). Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest Army. The Service has reviewed the petition, 1991). Beginning in the late 1800's to the literature cited in the petition, other early 1900's, the swift fox declined in Summary of Factors Affecting the available literature and information, and numbers, and the northern population Species has consulted with biologists and disappeared with the southern The following information is a researchers familiar with the swift fox. population decreasing in numbers (Cary summary and discussion of the five On the basis of the best scientific and 1911; Warren 1942; Egoscue 1979; Bee factors or listing criteria as set forth in commercial information available, the et al. 1981; FaunaWest 1991). section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations Service finds the petition presented In the mid-1950's, the swift fox staged (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to information indicating that the listing a limited comeback in portions of its implement the listing provisions of the may be warranted but the immediate historical range (Long 1965; Kilgore Act and their applicability to the current listing of the species is precluded by 1969; McDaniel 1976; Sharps 1977; status of the swift fox. work on other species having higher Hines 1980; FaunaWest 1991). However, A. The Present or threatened priority for listing. this reappearance was limited in nature destruction, modification, or The petition and its referenced and, in recent years, many of these curtailment of the species' habitat or documentation states that the swift fox populations have again declined.