Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31875

meet the training requirements of the process and follow up on inspection of an authorization are found at 40 CFR inspector as well as additional training reports and other information generated 745.324(i). in case development procedures and through enforcement-related activities. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 maintenance of proper case files. The state lead-based paint program will be in a position to correct lead-based Environmental protection, Hazardous ii. Compliance Assistance paint violations and effectively develop substances, Lead, Lead-based paint, The DAQ will continue to implement and issue enforcement remedies as Renovation, repair and painting, Work its existing compliance assistance follow up on identified lead-based paint practice standards, Training, program for the public and the regulated violations. Programs within the DAQ certification, Reporting and community to help facilitate awareness have followed the ‘‘Timely and recordkeeping requirements. and understanding of the Utah lead- Appropriate Enforcement Response to Dated: March 23, 2015. based paint program. The Utah Significant Air Pollution Violators’’ and Shaun L. McGrath, compliance assistance program will the Division’s ‘‘Compliance Program Regional Administrator, Region 8. continue to focus on the requirements Operating Plan,’’ or equivalent, which established in the Utah lead-based paint outlines timely and appropriate time [FR Doc. 2015–12802 Filed 6–3–15; 8:45 am] rule but will provide information to the frames for inspection and enforcement BILLING CODE 6560–50–P public and regulated communities about activities. other lead-based paint related subjects. vii. Compliance Monitoring and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR iii. Sampling Techniques Enforcement The Utah lead-based paint program The Utah lead-based paint program Fish and Wildlife Service presently has the equipment, training has demonstrated that it has the ability and technological capability necessary to ensure correction of lead-based paint 50 CFR Part 17 to collect samples for E/C issues. State violations and encompass either [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2015–0028: and LHD personnel have received planned and/or responsive lead-based FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000] training as part of the Utah lead-based paint compliance inspections. The DAQ paint inspector and risk assessor courses has also developed and issued RIN 1018–AX99 in performing x-ray fluorescence (XRF) enforcement responses, as appropriate, testing and collecting paint chip, dust based on the violation. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife wipe, soil and water samples. and Plants; Removing the Hualapai Additional training was received from 3. Enforcement and Compliance Mexican Vole From the Federal List of the XRF manufacturer in analyzing Element 3 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife The DAQ will submit the Summary samples with the NITON XLp 300 Series AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, on Progress and Performance report spectrum analyzer currently owned by Interior. the DAQ. Equipment to collect paint which will summarize the results of chip, dust wipe, soil and water samples implementing the lead-based paint E/C ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month have been assembled into kits at the program. These reports will include all petition finding; request for comments. DAQ and similar kits have been the required components as outlined in SUMMARY: Under the authority of the distributed to the LHDs. The DAQ has 40 CFR 745.324(h) and 40 CFR Endangered Species Act of 1973, as contracted with EMSL Analytical, Inc. 745.327(d). These reports will be amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and (EMSL) to conduct the analysis of paint submitted to the EPA Region 8 Wildlife Service (Service), announce a chip, dust wipe, soil and water samples. Administrator on an annual basis for the 12-month finding on a petition and a EMSL has been accredited by the first three years and either annually or proposed rule to remove the Hualapai American Industrial Hygiene bi-annually thereafter, at the discretion Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus Association (AIHA) through the EPA of the EPA. hualpaiensis) from the Federal List of Environmental Lead Proficiency IV. Federal Overfiling Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Analytical Testing (ELPAT) program because the original classification is no (AIHA ELPAT Lab ID#07014). Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate or fail longer the most appropriate iv. Tracking Tips and Complaints or refuse to comply with any determination. This action is based on a thorough review of the best available The DAQ has an existing program to requirement of an approved state scientific and commercial information, track tips and complaints and it is their program. Therefore, the EPA reserves which indicates that the currently listed intent to expand this existing program the right to exercise its enforcement subspecies is not a valid taxonomic for use with the RRP program. authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to entity. We are seeking information, data, v. Targeting Inspections comply with, any requirement of an and comments from the public on this The Utah lead-based paint program authorized state program. proposed rule. will continue to use its existing DATES: To ensure that we are able to V. Withdrawal of Authorization procedures for targeting inspections to consider your comments on this ensure compliance with the Utah lead- Pursuant to section 404 of TSCA, the proposed rule, they must be received or based paint rule. The principal EPA Administrator may withdraw postmarked on or before August 3, 2015. mechanism to target compliance authorization of a state or tribal RRP Comments submitted to the Federal inspections will be through inspection program after notice and opportunity for eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES) of firms conducting RRP activities. corrective action, if the program is not must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern being administered or enforced in Time on the closing date. Any vi. Follow Up to Inspection Reports compliance with standards, regulations comments that we receive after the The DAQ lead-based paint E/C and other requirements, established closing date may not be considered in program will demonstrate the ability to under the authorization. The procedures the final decision on this action. We reasonably, and in a timely manner, the EPA will follow for the withdrawal must receive requests for public

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules

hearings, in writing, at the address and population size of Hualapai the comments and materials in person at shown below in FOR FURTHER Mexican voles, including the locations the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s INFORMATION CONTACT by July 20, 2015. of any additional populations; and, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (3) New information regarding the life (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). history, ecology, and habitat use of by one of the following methods: Public Hearing (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Hualapai Mexican voles. eRulemaking Portal: http:// Please note that submissions merely Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– stating support for or opposition to the for one or more public hearings on this R2–ES–2015–0028, which is the docket action under consideration without proposed rule, if requested. We must number for this rulemaking. providing supporting information, receive requests for public hearings, in (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail although noted, will not be considered writing, at the address shown in FOR or hand-delivery to: Public Comments in making a determination, as section FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2011– 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that date shown in DATES. We will schedule 0037; Division of Policy, Performance, determinations as to whether any public hearings on this proposal, if any and Management Programs; U.S. Fish species is an endangered or threatened are requested, and places of those and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 species must be made ‘‘solely on the hearings, as well as how to obtain Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA basis of the best scientific and reasonable accommodations, in the 220411–3803. commercial data available.’’ Federal Register at least 15 days before We will post all comments on Prior to issuing a final rule on this the first hearing. proposed action, we will take into http://www.regulations.gov. This Background generally means that we will post any consideration all comments and any personal information you provide us additional information we receive. Such Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 (see the Information Requested section information may lead to a final rule that U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for below for more information). differs from this proposal. All comments any petition to revise the Federal Lists FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and recommendations, including names of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. and addresses, will become part of the and Plants that contains substantial Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona administrative record. scientific or commercial information Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 You may submit your comments and that delisting a species may be W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, materials concerning this proposed rule warranted, we make a finding within 12 Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone (602– by one of the methods listed in months of the date of receipt of the 242–0210) or by facsimile (602–242– ADDRESSES. We will not consider petition. In this finding, we determine 2513). If you use a telecommunications comments sent by email, fax, or to an whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not device for the deaf (TDD), call the address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) Federal Information Relay Service submit information via http:// warranted, but immediate proposal of a (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. www.regulations.gov, your entire regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted proposals to determine whether species Information Requested on the Web site. Please note that are threatened or endangered, and Any final action resulting from this comments posted to this Web site are expeditious progress is being made to proposed rule will be based on the best not immediately viewable. When you add or remove qualified species from scientific and commercial data available submit a comment, the system receives the Federal Lists of Endangered and and be as accurate as possible. it immediately. However, the comment Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section Therefore, we request comments or will not be publicly viewable until we 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we information from the public, other post it, which might not occur until treat a petition for which the requested concerned governmental agencies, several days after submission. action is found to be warranted but Native American Tribes, the scientific If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy precluded as though resubmitted on the community, industry, or other comments that include personal date of such finding, that is, requiring a interested parties concerning this identifying information, you may subsequent finding to be made within proposed rule. The comments that will request at the top of your document that 12 months. We must publish these 12- be most useful and likely to influence we withhold this information from month findings in the Federal Register. our decisions are those supported by public review. However, we cannot This document represents our 12-month data or peer-reviewed studies and those guarantee that we will be able to do so. warranted finding on an August 18, that include citations to, and analyses To ensure that the electronic docket for 2004, petition by the Arizona Game and of, applicable laws and regulations. this rulemaking is complete and all Fish Department (AGFD) to delist the Please make your comments as specific comments we receive are publicly Hualapai Mexican vole and a proposed as possible and explain the basis for available, we will post all hardcopy rule to remove the Hualapai Mexican them. In addition, please include submissions on http:// vole from the Federal List of sufficient information with your www.regulations.gov. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife comments to allow us to authenticate In addition, comments and materials due to data indicating that the original any scientific or commercial data you we receive, as well as supporting classification is no longer the reference or provide. In particular, we documentation we used in preparing appropriate determination. seek comments concerning the this proposed rule, will be available for Previous Federal Actions following: public inspection in two ways: (1) New information concerning the (1) You can view them on http:// The Hualapai Mexican vole was taxonomic classification and www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, included in a list of species considered conservation status of Hualapai Mexican enter FWS–R2–ES–2015–0028, which is for listing in our Notice of Review voles and Mexican voles in general; the docket number for this rulemaking. published on December 30, 1982 (47 FR (2) New information on the historical (2) You can make an appointment, 58454). We published a proposed rule to and current status, range, distribution, during normal business hours, to view list the Hualapai Mexican vole as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31877

endangered on January 5, 1987 (52 FR recognized the Microtus mexicanus issued a memo to the Arizona Ecological 306). The Hualapai Mexican vole was hualpaiensis subspecies based on an Services Field Office stating that we listed as an endangered subspecies on examination of morphological would only consult on voles in the October 1, 1987, without critical habitat characteristics from seven additional Hualapai Mountains until further (52 FR 36776). On August 19, 1991, a specimens collected in two areas in investigations resulted in data definitive Recovery Plan for the Hualapai Mexican Arizona (i.e., Hualapai Mountains and enough to establish that the Hualapai vole was finalized and signed by the lower end of Prospect Valley). Mexican voles had a wider distribution Regional Director (Service 1991). The Based on morphological than recognized at the time of listing. recovery plan outlined recovery measurements, the Hualapai Mexican Thus, we referenced the memo in all objectives and provided management vole was previously considered one of requests for consultations on Federal actions and research priorities, but did three subspecies of Mexican voles projects outside the Hualapai not contain recovery criteria for (Microtus mexicanus) in Arizona (Kime Mountains. For these reasons, we have downlisting or delisting because of lack et al. 1995, p. 1). The three subspecies only considered the Hualapai Mexican of information on the vole’s biology and of Mexican voles were the Hualapai vole’s range to be the Hualapai life history requirements (Service 1991, Mexican vole (M. m. hualpaiensis), Mountains. p. iv). Navajo Mexican vole (M. m. navaho), Since the Hualapai Mexican vole was On August 23, 2004, we received a and Mogollon Mexican vole (M. m. listed in 1987 (52 FR 36776; October 1, petition dated August 18, 2004, from the mogollonensis). The Hualapai Mexican 1987), several studies on the subspecies’ AGFD requesting that the Hualapai vole differed from the Navajo Mexican distribution, morphological Mexican vole be delisted under the Act. vole subspecies by a slightly longer characteristics, and genetic Included in the petition was body, longer tail, and longer and relationships to other Mexican vole information in support of delisting the broader skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). subspecies were undertaken. We briefly Hualapai Mexican vole because the Additionally, the Navajo Mexican vole’s describe these studies below. original classification is no longer the range was farther to the northeast. The Researchers did not collect or analyze appropriate determination due to Haulapai Mexican vole was also samples from the exact same locations, evidence that the Hualapai Mexican differentiated from the Mogollon so locations across studies do not vole is not a valid subspecies. On May Mexican vole subspecies, located farther necessarily match. At this time, these 15, 2008, we announced a 90-day to the east, by a longer body, shorter tail, studies represent the best scientific finding in the Federal Register (73 FR and a longer and narrower skull information available in order for us to 28094) that the petition presented (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). analyze Hualapai Mexican vole substantial information to indicate that The final listing rule for the Hualapai distribution and taxonomic the petitioned action may be warranted. Mexican vole (52 FR 36776; October 1, classification. Further, on March 29, 2010, we 1987) stated that this subspecies In a 1989 unpublished master’s thesis, published a notice initiating 5-year occupied the Hualapai Mountains, but Frey conducted an extensive study of status reviews for the Hualapai Mexican also acknowledged that Spicer et al. geographic variation of specimens from vole as well as 13 other species (75 FR (1985, p. 10) had found similar voles throughout the range of the Microtus 15454). However, the 5-year status from the Music Mountains, which are mexicanus group, which included review for the Hualapai Mexican vole located farther to the north in Arizona. populations in the United States and was not completed. The final listing rule (52 FR 36776; Mexico. Frey (1989) analyzed 44 On January 8, 2015, we received a 60- October 1, 1987) also stated that external and 19 cranial characters from day notice of intent to sue from Hoffmeister (1986, p. 445) had 1,775 vole specimens. Based on Sedgwick LLC (representing Mohave tentatively assigned specimens from morphological analysis, Frey (1989, p. County and American Stewards for Prospect Valley to the Hualapai 50) recommended that specimens from Liberty) for failure to publish a 12- Mexican vole subspecies, pending a the Bradshaw Mountains (Coconino month finding on the status of the larger sample size. In addition, the final County, AZ), which was formerly Hualapai Mexican vole. This document listing rule (52 FR 36776; October 1, considered the Mogollon Mexican vole represents our 12-month warranted 1987) stated that, if future taxonomic subspecies, be reassigned to the finding on the August 18, 2004, petition evaluation of voles from the Music Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies, by the AGFD to delist the Hualapai Mountains and Prospect Valley should (Hoffmeister, 1986). Frey (1989, p. 50) Mexican vole and a proposed rule to confirm that they are indeed the concluded that two specimens that had remove the Hualapai Mexican vole from Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies, then been discovered from the Music the Federal List of Endangered and they would be considered part of the Mountains (Mohave County, AZ) were Threatened Wildlife because the federally listed entity. However, we morphologically distinct from other original classification is no longer the never recognized Hualapai voles outside recognized subspecies, and these two appropriate determination due to of the Hualapai Mountains due to specimens represented a previously evidence that the Hualapai Mexican insufficient data to support recognition unrecognized taxonomy. Frey’s (1989) vole is not a valid subspecies. of additional populations. study did not include specimens from In May 1998, we reviewed Frey and Prospect Valley. Species Information Yates 1995 unpublished report, Frey and Yates (1993, pp. 1–23) Goldman (1938, pp. 493–494) ‘‘Hualapai Vole (Microtus mexicanus conducted a genetic analysis of described and named the Hualapai hualpaiensis) Genetic Study’’, to Hualapai Mexican vole tissue samples Mexican vole as Microtus mexicanus determine if Hualapai Mexican voles taken from 83 specimens across 13 hualpaiensis in 1938. Goldman’s (1938, occur in additional areas outside of the populations using protein pp. 493–494) subspecies description Hualapai Mountains. We found that the electrophoresis and mitochondrial DNA. was based on four specimens; Cockrum report did not provide sufficient data for The 13 populations represented all 3 (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and us to conclude that populations outside subspecies in Arizona and 1 population Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444–445) all the Hualapai Mountains are Hualapai from Mexico (Frey and Yates 1993, p. recognized Goldman’s description. Mexican voles. On May 29, 1998, the 20). Their results showed that three Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444–445) further Southwest Regional Director’s Office populations (i.e., Hualapai Mountains,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Hualapai Indian Reservation, and Music DNA from 83 specimens across 13 distance based on geographic Mountains) form a closely related group populations in Arizona (Hualapai separation. distinct from other populations in Mountains, Prospect Valley, Bradshaw One of the five reviewers concluded Arizona (Frey and Yates 1993, p. 10). Mountains, Sierra Prieta, Prescott, that populations from the Hualapai According to their analysis, populations Mingus Mountains, South Rim Grand Mountains, Music Mountains, and in the Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Canyon, San Francisco Mountain, Hualapai Reservation form a closely Indian Reservation, and Music Mogollon Rim, White Mountains, related group distinct from other Mountains could be regarded as the Chuska Mountains, Aubrey Cliffs, and populations in Arizona. This reviewer Hualapai Mexican vole subspecies. Navajo Mountain). Results from their further stated that M. m. hualpaiensis is Further, Frey and Yates (1993, p. 10) study did not support the separation of a valid subspecies based on found that the Navajo Mexican vole Mexican voles into three distinct morphologic, genetic, and subspecies populations from San subspecies based on nuclear and biogeographical data. The other four Francisco Peaks and the Grand Canyon mitochondrial genetic analyses (Busch reviewers concurred with the occurred in a clade (i.e., related by a et al. 2001, p. 12). Populations referred conclusions of Busch et al. (2001) that common ancestor) with the Mogollon to as the Navajo Mexican vole all populations in Arizona could be Mexican vole subspecies populations subspecies from Navajo Mountain, referred to as M. m. hualpaiensis. Even along the Mogollon Rim. Frey and Yates Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, though one reviewer believed that, (1993, p. 10) suggested that this and the Grand Canyon South Rim and based on morphological, genetic, and grouping questions the validity of populations referred to as the Mogollon biogeographic evidence, populations for Navajo Mexican vole as a separate Mexican vole subspecies from the the Hualapai Mountains, Prospect subspecies. However, in order to verify Mogollon Rim, Chuska Mountains, and Valley, Bradshaw Mountains area this suggestion, specimens would need White Mountains were genetically (including Sierra Prieta), and Chino to be examined from the type locality of similar to Mexican voles in the Hualapai Wash should be recognized as the the Navajo Mexican vole subspecies, Mountains, Hualapai Indian Hualapai vole subspecies, the other four which is Navajo Mountain, Utah (Frey Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs, Bradshaw reviewers concurred with the Busch et and Yates 1993, p. 10). The authors Mountains, Watson Woods, and Sierra al. (2001) report that all populations in recommended additional analyses, Prieta (Busch et al. 2001, p. 12). Arizona are the same subspecies (AGFD including larger sample sizes, to clarify Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested 2004, p. 4). At our request, the AGFD sent Busch the arrangement in three separate that only one subspecies of Mexican et al.’s (2001) genetic report to two subspecies (Frey and Yates 1993, p. 10). vole occurs in Arizona, but they did not At that time, we continued to recognize mammalian taxonomy experts for suggest a new subspecies name or to additional review. One of the taxonomic only recognize the Hualapai Mexican which currently named subspecies the vole subspecies as occurring in the reviewers agreed with the one Mexican voles should belong. Further, dissenting genetic reviewer from 2003 Hualapai Mountains. Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested that Frey and Yates (1995) continued their who stated that there are sufficient data voles from the White Mountains and genetic work on Mexican vole to support distinguishing more than one Chuska Mountains could be a different subspecies and analyzed 173 specimens subspecies of Mexican voles in Arizona, subspecies or may simply show some from 28 populations (16 from Arizona, and concurred with the genetic genetic differentiation due to geographic 10 from New Mexico, 1 from Utah, and reviewer’s population assignments 1 from Mexico) using protein separation; however, their analysis was (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The other taxonomic electrophoresis and mitochondrial DNA. inconclusive. Even though Busch et al. reviewer concluded that there is no They found that six populations (2001, p. 12) did not suggest a name for basis to consider the three subspecies of (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian which the only subspecies of Mexican Mexican voles (Hualapai, Navajo, and Reservation, Music Mountains, Aubrey voles in Arizona belong, the AGFD’s Mogollon) separately. This second Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa Maria (2004, p. 4) petition referred to Busch et taxonomic reviewer stated that data Mountains, and Bradshaw Mountains) al.’s (2001) single subspecies as used by Hoffmeister (1986) were may be the Hualapai vole subspecies Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis. insufficient to recognize three (Frey and Yates 1995, p. 9). The authors In 2003, the AGFD sent the Busch et subspecies based on morphology, and found unique alleles at two loci in these al. (2001) report to five genetic experts that the genetic analyses conducted by six populations, which identified them representing the Arizona Cooperative Frey and Yates (1993; 1995) and Busch as being closely related (Frey and Yates Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, et al. (2001) were subject to 1995, p. 9). Based on geographic Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, methodological problems (AGFD 2004, proximity, Frey and Yates (1995, p. 8) University of Colorado at Boulder, p. 4). The second taxonomic reviewer suspected that two other populations Oklahoma State University, and New asserted that all three subspecies should (Round Mountain and Sierra Prieta) Mexico State University for review. be considered as one subspecies, M. m. could be the Hualapai vole subspecies, Four out of the five reviewers agreed mogollonensis (common name not but they did not have adequate samples with the Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) suggested). for genetic verification. findings that genetic data do not support In summary, the various analyses and Additional genetic analyses were separation of vole populations in reviews present multiple interpretations conducted by Busch et al. (2001). Busch Arizona into three subspecies. In other of the taxonomy and distribution of et al. (2001, p. 4) examined nuclear words, the genetic similarities indicate Mexican voles in Arizona, none of genetic markers from 42 specimens that individual vole populations cannot which correlate with that of our original across six populations in northwestern be assigned to one of the three listing. The final listing rule for the Arizona (Hualapai Mountains, Prospect subspecies. Two reviewers agreed with Hualapai Mexican vole (52 FR 36776; Valley, Bradshaw Mountains, Sierra Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) that a possible October 1, 1987) relied on the best Prieta, Prescott, and Mingus Mountains) exception could be in the White available information at the time, and using Amplified Fragment Length Mountains and Chuska Mountains; only included Mexican voles found in Polymorphism (AFLP). Additionally, however, these populations may simply the Hualapai Mountains. The various they examined mitochondrial (D-loop) be showing slightly higher genetic published and unpublished reports all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31879

offer different conclusions about which ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as recovery. The Hualapai Mexican vole is populations may or may not be including any species or subspecies of being proposed for delisting because the Hualapai Mexican voles. At this time, fish or wildlife or plants, and any original determination at the time the the best available scientific information distinct vertebrate population segment species was classified is no longer presents conflicting information on the of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when appropriate. Because the Hualapai taxonomy of Mexican voles in general, mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the Mexican vole is not a valid taxonomic and no longer supports the recognition ‘‘species’’ is determined, we then entity, no monitoring period following of a separate Hualapai Mexican vole evaluate whether that species may be delisting would be required. subspecies. Reviews of the published endangered or threatened because of and unpublished reports have one or more of the five factors described Peer Review inconsistent conclusions. However, in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must In accordance with our joint peer there is sufficient evidence to indicate consider these same five factors in review policy with the National Marine that the currently listed entity for the reclassifying or delisting a species. For Fisheries Service, ‘‘Notice of Hualapai Mexican vole is no longer a species that are already listed as Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer valid taxonomic subspecies. Therefore, endangered or threatened, the analysis Review in Endangered Species Act based on the best available scientific of threats must include an evaluation of Activities,’’ that was published in the and commercial information at this both the threats currently facing the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR time, we find that the petitioned action species and the threats that are 34270), and the Office of Management to delist the subspecies is warranted, reasonably likely to affect the species in and Budget’s Final Information Quality and we propose to remove the Hualapai the foreseeable future following the Bulletin for Peer Review, dated Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus delisting or downlisting and the December 16, 2004, we will seek the hualpaiensis) from the Federal List of removal or reduction of the Act’s expert opinions of at least three Endangered and Threatened Wildlife protections. We may delist a species appropriate independent specialists due to recent data indicating that the according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best regarding the science in this proposed original determination is no longer available scientific and commercial data rule. The purpose of peer review is to appropriate. indicate that the species is neither ensure that our delisting decision is endangered or threatened for the Finding based on scientifically sound data, following reasons: (1) The species is assumptions, and analyses. We will We reviewed the petition, information extinct; (2) the species has recovered send copies of this proposed rule to the available in our files, other available and is no longer endangered or peer reviewers immediately following published and unpublished threatened; and/or (3) the original publication in the Federal Register. We information, and we consulted with scientific data used at the time the will invite these peer reviewers to genetic and taxonomic experts and other species was classified were in error. We comment, during the public comment Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. On determine that the original classification period, on the specific assumptions and the basis of the best scientific and is in error because there is sufficient conclusions in this proposed delisting commercial information available, we evidence that the currently listed entity of the Hualapai Mexican vole. We will find that the petitioned action to delist for the Hualapai Mexican vole is not a summarize the opinions of these the Hualapai Mexican vole is warranted valid taxonomic subspecies. reviewers in the final decision because the original determination at Effects of This Proposed Rule document, and we will consider their the time the species was classified as input and any additional information endangered in 1987 is now in error and This proposed rule, if made final, we received as part of our process of is no longer appropriate. There is would revise our regulations at 50 CFR making a final decision on this sufficient evidence to indicate that the 17.11(h) by removing the Hualapai proposal. Such communication may currently listed entity for the Hualapai Mexican vole throughout its range from lead to a final decision that differs from Mexican vole is not a valid taxonomic the Federal List of Endangered and this proposal. subspecies. Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical In making this finding, we have habitat was ever designated for this Required Determinations followed the procedures set forth in subspecies, this rule would not affect 50 Clarity of the Rule section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations CFR 17.95. implementing the listing provisions of The prohibitions and conservation We are required by Executive Orders the Act in title 50 of the Code of Federal measures provided by the Act would no 12866 and 12988 and by the Regulations (CFR) (50 CFR part 424). We longer apply for the Hualapai Mexican Presidential Memorandum of June 1, intend that any action for the Hualapai vole. Interstate commerce, import, and 1998, to write all rules in plain Mexican vole be as accurate as possible. export of this species would not be language. This means that each rule we Therefore, we will continue to accept prohibited under the Act. In addition, publish must: additional information and comments Federal agencies would no longer be (1) Be logically organized; from all concerned governmental required to consult under section 7 of (2) Use the active voice to address agencies, the scientific community, the Act on actions that may affect this readers directly; Native American Tribes, industry, or species. (3) Use clear language rather than any other interested party concerning jargon; Post-Delisting Monitoring this finding. (4) Be divided into short sections and Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the sentences; and Delisting Proposal Secretary of the Interior, through the (5) Use lists and tables wherever Section 4 of the Act and its Service, to implement a system in possible. implementing regulations, 50 CFR part cooperation with the States to monitor If you feel we have not met these 424, set forth the procedures for listing, for not less than 5 years the status of all requirements, send us comments by one reclassifying, or removing species from species that are removed from the Lists of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To the Federal Lists of Endangered and of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife help us better revise the rule, your Threatened Wildlife and Plants. and Plants (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12) due to comments should be as specific as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 31880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules

possible. For example, you should tell Arizona Ecological Services Field Office SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to us the numbers of the sections or (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). implement Regulatory Amendment 22 paragraphs that are unclearly written, to the Fishery Management Plan for the Authority which sections or sentences are too Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South long, the sections where you feel lists or The authority for this section is Atlantic Region (FMP) (Regulatory tables would be useful, etc. section 4 of the Endangered Species Act Amendment 22), as prepared and of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 seq.). Management Council (Council). If U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) Author(s) implemented, this proposed rule would This rule does not contain any revise the annual catch limits (ACLs) for The primary authors of this document collections of information that require gag grouper (gag) and wreckfish, and the are the staff members of the Arizona approval by the Office of Management directed commercial quota for gag, Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork based upon revisions to the acceptable Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR Reduction Act. This rule will not biological catch (ABC) and the optimum FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). impose recordkeeping or reporting yield (OY) for gag and wreckfish. The requirements on State or local List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 purpose of this proposed rule is to help governments, individuals, businesses, or Endangered and threatened species, achieve OY and prevent overfishing of organizations. An agency may not Exports, Imports, Reporting and gag and wreckfish in the South Atlantic conduct or sponsor and a person is not recordkeeping requirements, region while minimizing, to the extent required to respond to a collection of Transportation. practicable, adverse social and information unless it displays a economic effects to the snapper-grouper currently valid OMB control number. Proposed Regulation Promulgation fishery. Accordingly, we propose to amend National Environmental Policy Act DATES: Written comments must be part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title received on or before July 6, 2015. We have determined that 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, ADDRESSES: environmental assessments and as set forth below: You may submit comments environmental impact statements, as on the proposed rule, identified by defined under the authority of the PART 17—[AMENDED] ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0034’’ by either National Environmental Policy Act of of the following methods: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 • 1969, need not be prepared in Electronic Submission: Submit all continues to read as follows: connection with regulations adopted electronic public comments via the pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to published a notice outlining our reasons 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- for this determination in the Federal § 17.11 [Amended] 0034, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 49244). complete the required fields, and enter entry for ‘‘Vole, Hualapai Mexican’’ or attach your comments. Government-to-Government from the List of Endangered and • Threatened Wildlife. Mail: Submit written comments to Relationship With Tribes Mary Janine Vara, Southeast Regional Dated: May 22, 2015. In accordance with the President’s Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, memorandum of April 29, 1994, Stephen Guertin, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Instructions: Comments sent by any with Native American Tribal Service. other method, to any other address or Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive [FR Doc. 2015–13479 Filed 6–3–15; 8:45 am] individual, or received after the end of Order 13175, and the Department of the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P the comment period, may not be Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we considered by NMFS. All comments readily acknowledge our responsibility received are a part of the public record DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE to communicate meaningfully with and will generally be posted for public recognized Federal Tribes on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric viewing on www.regulations.gov government-to-government basis. Administration without change. All personal identifying Therefore, we will solicit information information (e.g., name, address, etc.), from Native American Tribes during the 50 CFR Part 622 confidential business information, or comment period to determine potential otherwise sensitive information effects on them or their resources that [Docket No. 150305220–5469–01] submitted voluntarily by the sender will may result from the delisting of the RIN 0648–BE76 be publicly accessible. NMFS will Hualapai Mexican vole, and we will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ fully consider their comments on the Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of A’’ in the required fields if you wish to proposed rule submitted during the Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- remain anonymous). public comment period. We have Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Electronic copies of Regulatory already been in contact with the Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 22, which includes an Hualapai Tribe’s Natural Resource Amendment 22 environmental assessment, a Regulatory Department. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis and a References Cited Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and regulatory impact review, may be Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), obtained from the Southeast Regional A complete list of all references cited Commerce. Office Web site at http:// in this rule is available on the Web site, sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_ ACTION: Proposed rule; request for http://www.regulations.gov, or upon fisheries/s_atl/sg/2015/reg_am22/ comments. request from the Field Supervisor, index.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Jun 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS