25664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and all statutes and/or regulations that 

require such treatments. 

v. Several applicators mentioned that 

sulfuryl fluoride was safer than 

phosphine for applicators. Please 

explain why sulfuryl fluoride 

application is safer, using specific 

examples where possible. 

vi. Several comments mentioned the 

inability of heat to penetrate finished 

product. Please contrast this with the 

ability for fumigant gas to penetrate the 

products. 

vii. If any specific customer requests 

for fumigation to address a particular 

pest infestation are mentioned in a 

comment, please provide examples of 

those requests. 

viii. If any claims are made that 

sulfuryl fluoride is needed so that food 

can meet phytosanitary conditions in 

foreign markets, please provide 

examples of those requirements (e.g., 

import requirements of other countries), 

please explain why quarantine methyl 

bromide cannot be used to meet the 

requirements, and please provide details 

on the pounds of product fumigated 

with sulfuryl fluoride for export each 

year to countries with these 

requirements. 

ix. Many comments from groups that 

process and store commodities, such as 

nuts and dried fruit, noted that there 

was a need for fast turnaround times in 

fumigation to meet market demand. If 

the industry never requested a methyl 

bromide critical use exemption, please 

explain how fast fumigation was 

conducted prior to the introduction of 

sulfuryl fluoride, why the transition to 

sulfuryl fluoride occurred, and why it 

would now not be possible to switch 

back to previous methods. Several 

comments indicated that there would be 

human health concerns from lack of an 

effective fumigant. If available, please 

provide specific examples (with 

complete and accurate references) of 

public health issues caused by lack of 

fumigants. 

x. As to claims that there are 

commercially viable, chemical or nonchemical, alternatives for commodities 

and/or structures, please provide 

literature citations and/or personal 

contacts for the efficacy of these 

alternatives and the costs and technical 

feasibility of transition. In addition, 

please provide any available 

information on how using the 

alternatives is expected to affect the cost 

of the end product. 

xi. As to claims that pest problems for 

which U.S. industries currently employ 

sulfuryl fluoride are successfully 

controlled in countries where neither 

sulfuryl fluoride nor methyl bromide is 

used, please provide data, literature 

citations and/or personal contacts for 

the efficacy and costs of these chemical 

or non-chemical alternatives. 

xii. As to claims of economic or other 

types of impacts as a result of EPA’s 

proposed order, recognizing that EPA 

has not yet issued a final order or taken 

final agency action, please provide 

specific information, data, and/or 

personal contacts to substantiate these 

claims. 

X. Regulatory Assessment 

Requirements 

This notice seeks additional comment 

on the Agency’s proposed order 

regarding objections filed under section 

408 of FFDCA. The proposed order is 

part of an adjudication and not a rule. 

The regulatory assessment requirements 

imposed on rulemaking do not, 

therefore, apply to this notice. 

XI. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply to 

this notice because this is not a rule for 

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 24, 2012. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10493 Filed 4–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0039; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AX94 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf 

in Wyoming From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf 

Population’s Status as an 

Experimental Population 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our October 5, 2011, proposal to 

remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in 

Wyoming from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. This proposal 

relied heavily on Wyoming’s wolf 

management plan and noted that 

conforming changes to State law and 

regulation would be required to allow 

Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as 

written. Wyoming recently completed 

four documents that clarify Wyoming’s 

approach to wolf management should 

we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, 

including revised State statutes, revised 

gray wolf management regulations 

(chapter 21), revised gray wolf hunting 

season regulations (chapter 47), and an 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan. We are reopening the 

comment period for the proposal to 

allow all interested parties an additional 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed rule in light of these 

documents. If you submitted comments 

previously, you do not need to resubmit 

them because we have already 

incorporated them into the public 

record and will fully consider them in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 16, 2012. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

R6–ES–2011–0039, which is the docket 

number for this rulemaking. On the 

search results page, under the Comment 

Period heading in the menu on the left 

side of your screen, check the box next 

to ‘‘Open’’ to locate this document. 

Please ensure you have found the 

correct document before submitting 

your comments. If your comments will 

fit in the provided comment box, please 

use this feature of http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our comment review 

procedures. If you attach your 

comments as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2011– 

0039; Division of Policy and Directives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25665 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see ‘‘Public Comments’’ in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on wolves in the northern 

Rocky Mountains see http:// 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ 

mammals/wolf/, or contact U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region Office, Ecological Services 

Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, 

CO 80228; telephone 303–236–7400. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on the October 5, 2011, 

proposal (76 FR 61782) to remove the 

gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in light of four 

recently revised documents that clarify 

Wyoming’s approach to wolf 

management should we delist the gray 

wolf in Wyoming, including: revised 

State statutes; a revised gray wolf 

management regulations (chapter 21); a 

revised gray wolf hunting season 

regulations (chapter 47); and an 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan. Copies of the revised 

State statute, Wyoming’s ‘‘Gray Wolf 

Management’’ regulations (chapter 21), 

‘‘Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons’’ 

regulations (chapter 47), and the 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan are available: on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/; or upon 

request from the Mountain-Prairie 

Region Office, Ecological Services 

Division (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). We will consider information 

and recommendations from all 

interested parties. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We will not accept 

comments sent by email or fax or to an 

address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you 

submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Mountain-Prairie Region 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

On October 5, 2011, we proposed to 

remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife (76 FR 61782). This proposal 

relied heavily on Wyoming’s 2011 wolf 

management plan (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission (WGFC) 2011) and 

noted that conforming changes to State 

law and regulation would be required to 

allow Wyoming’s plan to be 

implemented as written. These changes 

have now been finalized by Wyoming. 

Following publication of the proposal, 

we began discussions with Wyoming on 

necessary or advisable revisions to its 

State statutes. On January 9, 2012, we 

notified the Governor of Wyoming that 

draft legislative language, developed by 

the State in consultation with the 

Service, should provide an acceptable 

legal basis for implementing the State’s 

Gray Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 

2012a). This legislation was passed by 

the Wyoming legislature during the 

2012 session and, on March 7, 2012, 

was signed by the Governor of Wyoming 

and became law. 

Wyoming also developed an 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan to address concerns 

raised by the independent peer review 

panel that evaluated our proposed rule 

and its supporting information. The 

addendum, developed by the State in 

consultation with the Service, provides 

additional clarification and detail about 

the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department’s approach to managing 

wolves. On March 5, 2012, Wyoming 

released the addendum for public 

review and comment. The Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission approved a 

final version of the addendum on March 

22, 2012. 

In early 2012, we began discussions 

with Wyoming on necessary or 

advisable revisions to its State 

regulations including Wyoming’s ‘‘Gray 

Wolf Management’’ regulations (chapter 

21) and ‘‘Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons’’ 

regulations (chapter 47). On March 9, 

2012, we notified the Governor of 

Wyoming that we regard the draft 

revised regulations, developed by the 

State in consultation with the Service, 

to be consistent with State law and 

Wyoming’s conditionally approved 

Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 2012b). 

On March 9, 2012, the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department made the 

proposed regulations available for 

public review and comment. The 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

approved a final version of these revised 

regulations at their April 25–26, 2012, 

meeting. 

Highlights of Recently Released 

Wyoming Management Documents 

Population Management—The 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan reaffirms Wyoming’s 

commitment to manage the wolf 

population with a buffer above the 

agreed-upon population minimums of at 

least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 

wolves in Wyoming outside of 

Yellowstone National Park and the 

Wind River Indian Reservation at the 

end of the calendar year (WGFC 2012, 

pp. 3–5). The addendum adopts this 

approach, as it would provide the 

greatest assurance that minimum 

agreed-upon population targets can be 

confidently exceeded on an annual 

basis, and that Wyoming would not risk 

managing wolves near minimum 

recovery levels (WGFC 2012, p. 5). 

Furthermore, Wyoming clarified that the 

buffer would be applied solely within 

Wyoming’s portion of the population in 

the Wyoming Trophy Game 

Management Area (WTGMA) (i.e., 

wolves in Yellowstone National Park 

and the Wind River Indian Reservation 

would not constitute the buffer) (WGFC 

2012, p. 5). Regarding the size of the 

buffer, no specific number or range was 

offered. Instead, Wyoming noted that 

the buffer would be determined through 

an adaptive management approach and 

may fluctuate based on natural 

population dynamics and the effects of 

specific management actions (WGFC 

2012, p. 4). 

The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Management Plan also reaffirms 

and clarifies Wyoming’s intention to use 

an adaptive management framework 

based on intensive monitoring efforts to 

ensure minimum population objectives 

are never compromised (WGFC 2012, 

pp. 5–7). The addendum explains that, 

because of additional human-caused 

mortality, Wyoming would monitor the 

wolf population more intensively than 

the Service has in the past, and that this 

effort would become more intense as the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25666 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

population approaches minimum 

population objectives (WGFC 2012, 

p. 5). Regarding management responses, 

the addendum clarifies that if the 

minimum population objectives are 

approached, the State would 

sequentially limit: Control actions for 

unacceptable impacts to ungulates; 

harvest levels; control for damage to 

private property; and lethal take permits 

(WGFC 2012, p. 7). The last item in this 

sequential list (lethal take permits) is 

discussed further below. Regarding 

hunting specifically, the addendum 

notes that Wyoming would employ an 

iterative, adaptive, and public process 

whereby season structures, hunt areas, 

and quotas are evaluated and adjusted 

based on the response of the wolf 

population to prior management actions 

(WGFC 2012, pp. 4–7). Furthermore, the 

addendum notes Wyoming’s authority 

to revise, reduce, or close hunting 

seasons if necessary (WGFC 2012, pp. 

6–7). 

The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Management Plan also confirms 

the State’s intention to manage wolf 

numbers to gradually reduce the wolf 

population over a series of years (WGFC 

2012, p. 6). This will give the State an 

opportunity to understand how to best 

manage wolves in Wyoming, while not 

risking relisting of wolves under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

(WGFC 2012, p. 6). Within the WTGMA, 

at the end of 2011, there were at least 

177 wolves in at least 29 packs 

(including 16 breeding pairs), as well as 

at least 4 lone wolves; within the 

seasonal WTGMA, at the end of 2011, 

there were at least 10 wolves in at least 

2 packs (including 1 breeding pair), as 

well as at least 5 lone wolves (Jimenez 

2012, in litt.). If we delist the gray wolf 

in Wyoming, the State intends to 

authorize a hunting quota of 52 wolves 

in 2012, and once reproduction is 

accounted for, the State believes this 

would reduce the population by about 

10 percent within the WTGMA (Mills 

2012, pers. comm.). Specifically, 

Wyoming estimates the population 

within the WTGMA would be around 

170 wolves and 15 breeding pairs at the 

end of 2012 (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). 

We note that this first year goal is 

comfortably above the minimum agreedupon population targets. 

In the permanent predator area, we 

estimated there were at least 22 wolves 

in at least 5 packs (including 2 breeding 

pairs), and at least 6 lone wolves at the 

end of 2011 (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). 

Additionally, 1 pack with 3 wolves (the 

Owl Creek pack on the Wind River 

Indian Reservation) borders and likely 

spends a significant portion of its time 

in the predator area (Jimenez 2012, in 

litt.). We believe few of the wolf packs 

in predator portions of Wyoming would 

persist to the end of 2012, although 

some individuals from these packs 

could survive as lone animals. 

Similarly, some of the current lone 

wolves in the predator area would be 

killed. Because none of the packs 

resident to the WTGMA are known to 

spend a significant portion of their time 

in the predator portions of Wyoming 

(Jimenez 2012, in litt.), the predator 

designation would not be expected to 

meaningfully impact wolves in the 

WTGMA (Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.). 

Regarding genetics, Wyoming’s gray 

wolf management regulations indicate 

the State is committed to managing gray 

wolves in Wyoming to ensure that 

genetic diversity and connectivity issues 

do not threaten the population (Chapter 

21, section 4(a)(ii)). This regulation goes 

on to say this commitment would be 

accomplished by encouraging effective 

migrants into the population in 

accordance with the Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Management Plan (Chapter 21, 

section 4(a)(ii)). The Addendum to the 

Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan 

indicates the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department would strive for a minimum 

genetic target of ∼1 effective migrant per 

generation (WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). If this 

minimum target is not achieved, the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

would first consider changes to the 

monitoring program, if the increased 

monitoring is likely to overcome the 

failure to document the desired level of 

gene flow (WGFC 2012, p. 6). If the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

determines increased monitoring is 

unlikely to detect adequate levels of 

genetic interchange, or they determine 

that sufficient interchange is not 

occurring regardless of monitoring 

efforts, they would alter management, 

including reducing mortality quotas in 

dispersal corridors or reducing total 

mortality quotas over a series of years to 

increase the probability that migrants 

into the population survive and 

reproduce (WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). 

Translocation of wolves between 

subpopulations would only be used as 

a stop-gap measure, if necessary to 

increase genetic interchange (WGFC 

2012, p. 7). These efforts would be 

coordinated with Montana and Idaho 

(WGFC 2012, p. 7). 

Variations or Clarifications From What 

Was Described in the Proposed Rule 

Lethal Take Permits—Consistent with 

the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management 

Plan (WGFC 2011, pp. 22–23, 32), the 

proposed rule explained that the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

‘‘may’’ issue lethal take permits in 

chronic depredation areas. However, 

Wyoming law (W.S. 23–1–304(n)) states 

that permits ‘‘shall be issued’’ to 

landowners or livestock owners in cases 

where wolves are harassing, injuring, 

maiming, or killing livestock or other 

domesticated animals, and where 

wolves occupy geographic areas where 

chronic wolf predation occurs. This 

mandatory approach to issuance of 

lethal take permits is a significant 

change from both current management 

and our summary of anticipated State 

management provided in the proposed 

rule. Another meaningful change from 

current Federal management is 

Wyoming’s allowance for lethal take 

permits for ‘‘harassment.’’ While these 

factors indicate lethal take permits 

could become a significant source of 

mortality if we delist the gray wolf in 

Wyoming, numerous safeguards are in 

place that limit their potential to 

meaningfully and detrimentally impact 

the population. 

For example, State statute requires 

that permits be issued, and renewed as 

necessary, in 45-day increments (W.S. 

23–1–304(n)), and State regulations 

limit the take allowance for each permit 

to a maximum of 2 gray wolves, and 

specify that each permit can only apply 

to a specified limited geographic or 

legally described area (Chapter 21, 

section 7(b)(ii)). These requirements 

ensure application of this source of take 

is limited in time and geography. 

Similarly, State regulations indicate that 

purported cases of wolf harassment, 

injury, maiming, or killing must be 

verified by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (Chapter 21, section 6(b)). 

We believe this requirement for 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

verification would limit potential abuse 

for this source of mortality. Finally, and 

most importantly, State law (W.S. 23–1– 

304(n)) and the implementing regulation 

(Chapter 21, section 7(b)(iii)) clarify that 

existing permits would be cancelled, 

and issuance of new permits would be 

suspended, if the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department determines further 

lethal control ‘‘could’’ compromise the 

State’s ability to maintain a population 

of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 

100 wolves in Wyoming outside of 

Yellowstone National Park and the 

Wind River Indian Reservation at the 

end of the calendar year. Importantly, 

the word ‘‘could’’ (as opposed to would 

or will) provides authority for the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department to 

manage for a buffer above the minimum 

target and limit control from lethal take 

permits, if necessary, to maintain an 

adequate minimum buffer. However, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25667 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan explains that the 

State law’s mandatory approach to 

issuance of lethal take permits requires 

that Wyoming’s adaptive management 

framework limit other discretionary 

sources of mortality before it limits this 

source of mortality (WGFC 2012, p. 7). 

On the whole, the available 

information indicates that, if we delist 

the gray wolf in Wyoming, Wyoming’s 

approach to lethal take permits may 

impact population abundance 

(particularly at a localized level where 

wolf-livestock conflict is high), but that 

Wyoming has instituted sufficient 

safeguards to ensure that this source of 

mortality would not compromise the 

State’s ability to maintain a population 

of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 

100 wolves in Wyoming outside of 

Yellowstone National Park and the 

Wind River Indian Reservation at the 

end of the calendar year. 

Management on the Wind River 

Indian Reservation—Another issue 

incorrectly characterized in the 

proposed rule is wolf management 

within the Wind River Indian 

Reservation. Specifically, the proposed 

rule noted that wolves would be 

classified as game animals within the 

Wind River Indian Reservation’s 

boundaries. This assumption was 

reflected in the proposal’s discussion of 

the percentage of Wyoming where 

wolves would be protected or managed 

as a game animal, as this calculation 

considered the entire reservation as 

game. However, the Addendum to the 

Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan 

clarifies that, if we delist the gray wolf 

in Wyoming, wolves would be classified 

as predators on non-Indian fee titled 

lands within the Wind River Indian 

Reservation’s boundaries (WGFC 2012, 

p. 3). This altered interpretation would 

have minimal impact on wolf 

management and abundance, as these 

inholdings tend to be concentrated on 

the eastern side of the reservation 

outside of reported areas of wolf activity 

(Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and 

Game Department 2007, Figure 1). 

Furthermore, this change in our 

understanding is likely of little 

biological consequence as the proposed 

rule noted an expectation that the 

reservation would likely support only a 

‘‘very modest * * * number of wolves.’’ 

Therefore, this change does not alter our 

perspective on the viability of the 

Wyoming wolf population should 

delisting move forward. 

Management Authority and 

Hunting—Following publication of the 

proposed rule, many members of the 

public expressed confusion about what 

it means to be included in the WTGMA 

and whether hunting would occur 

within National Park Service and 

National Wildlife Refuge System units. 

First, let us clarify that nothing in the 

proposed rule would alter, or in any 

way affect, the jurisdiction or authority 

of the State of Wyoming, the National 

Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service with respect to the 

regulation of hunting in any unit of the 

National Park System or National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Whatever 

jurisdiction or authority the State and 

the respective Services had to authorize, 

prohibit, or regulate hunting in such 

areas prior to any final rule would be 

unchanged by the promulgation of that 

rule (except, of course, that, if adopted, 

the proposed rule would remove the 

protections of the Endangered Species 

Act from wolves wherever they may 

occur in Wyoming). 

Wyoming regulations (Chapter 21, 

section 2; Chapter 47, section 4) and the 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan (WGFC 2012, p. 3) 

clarify management authority over 

various portions of the WTGMA. 

Specifically, Wyoming clarified that the 

State of Wyoming has no management 

authority in Yellowstone National Park, 

on lands administered by the National 

Park Service within Grand Teton 

National Park, on National Wildlife 

Refuges, and on lands within the Wind 

River Indian Reservation except nonIndian owned fee titled lands (as 

discussed above) (WGFC 2012, p. 3). 

Wyoming further clarified that, if we 

delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, wolves 

present within Grand Teton National 

Park and the National Elk Refuge would 

be designated as trophy game animals 

solely for the purposes of counting 

wolves toward the State’s agreed-upon 

management objectives (WGFC 2012, p. 

3), and that any planned allowance for 

hunting would not apply in these areas 

(Chapter 47, section 4(a)). Although 

some hunting is currently allowed in 

the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial 

Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling 

legislation and Wyoming law, 

Wyoming’s hunting regulations are clear 

that gray wolf hunting would be closed 

in the Parkway for at least 2012 (Chapter 

47, section 4(i)). 

While such clarifications are 

important to have a complete 

understanding of wolf management, if 

we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, 

these characterizations of authority and 

clarifications of intention have little, to 

no, biological impact on the ability of 

Wyoming’s regulatory framework to 

satisfy its agreed-upon management 

objectives. 

Service Assessment 

The Service has reviewed the recently 

finalized Wyoming wolf management 

documents (including revised State 

statutes, revised gray wolf management 

regulations (chapter 21), revised gray 

wolf hunting season regulations 

(chapter 47), and an Addendum to the 

Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan), 

and concludes that the revisions to 

these documents are consistent with the 

conditionally approved Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Management Plan. Based on our 

review, we believe Wyoming’s 

regulatory framework would likely 

maintain a population of at least 10 

breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves 

in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone 

National Park and the Wind River 

Indian Reservation at the end of the 

calendar year and, when considered in 

the context of management across the 

entire State and the entire Northern 

Rocky Mountain (NRM) region, that the 

regulatory framework would likely 

maintain Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered NRM gray wolf population 

and contribute to the continued 

maintenance of the larger NRM gray 

wolf population above minimum 

recovery levels. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we intend to subject this proposal to 

peer review. Specifically, the peer 

review will evaluate the proposal in 

light of the four recently completed 

documents that clarify Wyoming’s 

approach to wolf management should 

we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, 

including: Revised State statutes; 

revised gray wolf management 

regulations (chapter 21); revised gray 

wolf hunting season regulations 

(chapter 47); and an Addendum to the 

Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. 

We anticipate this peer review will be 

completed and provided to the Service 

during the public comment period. 

Once available, we intend to post the 

peer review comments online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/

mammals/wolf/. We will consider all 

comments and information provided by 

the public and peer reviewers during 

this comment period in preparation of a 

final determination on our proposed 

delisting. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from our proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available: On the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http://www.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25668 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ 

mammals/wolf/; or upon request from 

the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff members of the Mountain-Prairie 

Region Office, Ecological Services 

Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 17, 2012. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10407 Filed 4–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0042; MO 

92210–0–0009] 

RIN 1018–AV86 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for the Chupadera Springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis chupaderae) and 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our August 2, 2011, proposed rule to 

list the Chupadera springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis chupaderae) as endangered 

and designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an additional opportunity to 

comment on the proposed rule and 

previously completed drafts of the 

economic analysis and environmental 

assessment. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

they will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 16, 2012. If you use the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal to submit your 

comments (see ADDRESSES), you must 

submit your comments by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed rule, 

draft economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket Number FWS–R2–ES–2011– 

0042, or by mail from the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Comment submission: You may 

submit written comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0042, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2011– 

0042; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; 

telephone (505–761–4781). Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800–877–8339). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46218), we 

published a proposed rule to list as 

endangered and designate critical 

habitat for the Chupadera springsnail. 

We proposed to designate 

approximately 1.9 acres (ac) (0.7 

hectares (ha)) in two units located in 

Socorro County, New Mexico, as critical 

habitat. That proposal had a 60-day 

comment period, ending October 3, 

2011. We received no requests for a 

public hearing; therefore, no public 

hearing will be held. On January 20, 

2012 (77 FR 2943), we reopened the 

public comment period on our August 

2, 2011, proposed rule to allow 

additional public comment on the 

proposed rule, and we made available, 

and requested public comments on, the 

draft economic analysis, draft 

environmental assessment, and the 

associated required determinations for 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. Our January 20, 2012, 

publication had a 30-day comment 

period, ending February 21, 2012. 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed listing 

and proposed critical habitat for the 

Chupadera springsnail that published in 

the Federal Register on August 2, 2011 

(76 FR 46218). We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We intend that 

any final action resulting from this 

proposal be as accurate as possible and 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data. 

If you previously submitted 

comments or information on the 

proposed rule, please do not resubmit 

them. We have incorporated them into 

the public record, and we will fully 

consider them in the preparation of our 

final determination. Our final 

determination concerning this proposed 

listing and critical habitat will take into 

consideration all written comments and 

any additional information we receive. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. We will post all 

hardcopy comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov as well. If you 

submit a hardcopy comment that 

includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0042, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain 

copies of the proposed rule on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0042, or 

by mail from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS