Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19941 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08405 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 13–184 and 10–90; Report 

No. 3017] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

by Charles F. Hobbs, on behalf of 

AdTec, Inc.; Jennifer Hightower, et al., 

on behalf of Cox Communications, Inc.; 

Kathleen O’Brien Ham, et al., on behalf 

of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and Derrick B. 

Owens, et al., on behalf of WTA— 

Advocates for Rural Broadband, et al. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before April 29, 

2015. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan P. Boyle, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7924, 

email: Bryan.Boyle@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 3017, released April 8, 2015. 

The full text of Report No. 3017 is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be accessed 

online via the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System at http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because this notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

Subject: Modernization of the Schools 

and Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program, 

published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 

2015, in WC Docket Nos. 13–184 and 

10–90, and published pursuant to 47 

CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 4. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08510 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AZ23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker 

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 the January 25, 2013, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis, draft environmental 

assessment, and amended required 

determinations of the proposed 

designation. In addition, we are 

proposing revisions to the proposed 

critical habitat boundaries that would 

decrease our total proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker from approximately 

475.3 kilometers (291.3 miles) to 

approximately 228.4 kilometers (141.9 

miles). We are reopening the comment 

period to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the revisions to the proposed critical 

habitat designation described in this 

document, the associated draft 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. 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 14, 2015. 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. Any comments that we receive 

after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: You may 

obtain copies of the proposed rule, the 

draft economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment on the 

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

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002 or 

by mail from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Written comments: You may submit 

written comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

on the critical habitat proposal, draft 

economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment by searching 

for Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002, 

which is the docket for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit comments 

on the critical habitat proposal, draft 

economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013– 

0002; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg 

Pike MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 

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 ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87113; by telephone 505–346–2525; or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19942 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

by facsimile 505–346–2542. 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 are reopening the comment period 

for our proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker that was published in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2013 

(78 FR 5351). We are specifically 

seeking comments on the revisions to 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

described in this document, and on the 

draft economic analysis and the draft 

environmental assessment, which are 

now available, for the critical habitat 

designation; see ADDRESSES for 

information on how to submit your 

comments. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are also 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether 

there are threats to the subspecies from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat may not be prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Zuni bluehead sucker habitat; 

(b) What areas, that were occupied at 

the time of listing (or are currently 

occupied) and that contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies, should be included in the 

designation and why; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their probable impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on the Zuni bluehead sucker and 

proposed critical habitat. 

(5) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation; in 

particular, we seek information on any 

impacts on small entities or families, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(6) Information on the extent to which 

the description of economic impacts in 

the draft economic analysis is complete 

and accurate and the description of the 

environmental impacts in the draft 

environmental assessment is complete 

and accurate. 

(7) Whether any areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation, and specifically proposed 

critical habitat on Tribal lands owned 

by the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo, 

should be considered for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and 

whether the benefits of potentially 

excluding any specific area outweigh 

the benefits of including that area under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(8) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(9) Information about the habitat 

conditions within the proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker, especially the quality 

and quantities of the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs), 

particularly within the Rio Nutria above 

the Tampico Draw confluence, Rio 

Pescado, and Cebolla Creek. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed critical 

habitat rule (78 FR 5351; January 25, 

2013) during the initial comment period 

from January 25, 2013, to March 26, 

2013, 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 rule. Our 

final determination concerning critical 

habitat will take into consideration all 

written comments and any additional 

information we receive during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comments and other relevant 

information, we may, during the 

development of our final determination 

on the proposed critical habitat 

designation, find that areas proposed are 

not essential, are appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed 

critical habitat designation, draft 

economic analysis, or draft 

environmental assessment by one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section. 

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, the 

draft economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment, will be 

available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002, 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, the draft 

economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment on the 

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

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002, or 

by mail from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker in this document. 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the 

designation of critical habitat, refer to 

the proposed critical habitat rule, 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351). For more 

information on the Zuni bluehead 

sucker or its habitat, refer to the final 

listing rule, published in the Federal 

Register on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43132) 

and the proposed critical habitat rule, 

published on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 

5351), or contact the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On January 25, 2013, we concurrently 

published a proposed rule to list as 

endangered and a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker (78 FR 5369 and 78 FR 

5351, respectively). We proposed to 

designate approximately 475.3 

kilometers (km) (291.3 miles (mi)) in 

three units in McKinley, Cibola, and 

San Juan Counties, New Mexico, and 

Apache County, Arizona as critical 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19943 

habitat. That proposal had a 60-day 

comment period, ending March 26, 

2013. 

After the publication of the proposed 

rules, we found there was substantial 

scientific disagreement regarding the 

taxonomic status of some populations 

that we considered Zuni bluehead 

sucker in the proposed listing rule. On 

January 9, 2014, we published in the 

Federal Register a document that 

reopened the comment period for the 

proposed listing rule and extended the 

final determination for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker by 6 months due to 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

Zuni bluehead sucker’s taxonomic 

status in some locations (79 FR 1615). 

That comment period closed on 

February 10, 2014. Based on 

information received during the 

comment period, we revised the Zuni 

bluehead sucker’s range in the final 

listing rule. An error was reported in the 

genetic data evaluated for the proposed 

listing rule (Schwemm and Dowling 

2008, entire); the correct information led 

to the determination that the bluehead 

suckers in the Lower San Juan River 

watershed (proposed critical habitat 

Unit 3; San Juan River Unit) were 

bluehead suckers (Catostomus 

discobolus), not Zuni bluehead suckers 

(Catostomus discobolus yarrowi). Thus, 

the San Juan River Unit populations 

were no longer included in the final 

listing rule. We published in the 

Federal Register a final listing 

determination for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43132). 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions 

affecting critical habitat must consult 

with us on the effects of their proposed 

actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Changes From Previously Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

In this document, we are proposing 

revisions to the critical habitat 

designation for the Zuni bluehead that 

we proposed on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 

5351). These revisions are based on 

information we received during the 

comment period. The best available 

information identifies that Zuni 

bluehead sucker does not occur in 

proposed Unit 3 (San Juan River Unit), 

and a portion of proposed Unit 1 (Zuni 

River Unit) does not meet the definition 

of critical habitat. We are not proposing 

any revisions to proposed Unit 2 

(Kinlichee Creek Unit). As a result of the 

removal of proposed Unit 3 and a 

portion of Unit 1 from our proposed 

critical habitat designation, the total 

amount of proposed critical habitat for 

the Zuni bluehead sucker is decreased 

from approximately 475.3 kilometers 

(km) (291.3 miles (mi)) to approximately 

228.4 km (141.9 mi). 

Based on new information regarding 

the proposed Zuni River Unit (Unit 1), 

we are removing the Rio Pescado above 

Pescado Dam from the proposed critical 

habitat within the Zuni River Mainstem 

(Subunit 1b). We originally proposed 

107.8 km (67.0 mi) along the Zuni River, 

Rio Pescado, and Cebolla Creek as 

critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker in Subunit 1b. Although we 

considered the entire subunit to be 

unoccupied, we stated in the proposed 

designation that this subunit is essential 

for the conservation of the Zuni 

bluehead sucker because it provides for 

connection between populations and 

also provides space for the growth and 

expansion of the subspecies in this 

portion of its historical range. However, 

the presence of primary constituent 

elements in this unit had not been 

investigated in any detail at the time of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. Based upon further 

investigation, this area of the Rio 

Pescado (above Pescado Dam) is a dry 

wash with no running water present 

except during periods of rain; this reach 

likely never had perennial flow. As a 

result, stream habitat (pools, runs, 

riffles) and substrate (gravel, cobble) are 

absent, and the area does not meet the 

habitat needs for any life stage, nor does 

it provide connectivity to any 

population of Zuni bluehead sucker, nor 

do we expect that it ever was habitat for 

the subspecies in the past. Therefore, we 

are removing this portion of Subunit 1b 

from our proposed critical habitat 

designation because suitable habitat is 

absent and is unlikely to develop, and 

the segment is not essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies. The 

removal of critical habitat above 

Pescado Dam in Subunit 1b will reduce 

the total proposed critical habitat 

designation for Unit 1 from 182 km 

(113.1 mi) to 131.8 km (81.9 mi). 

In addition to these revisions to 

proposed Unit 1, we are removing the 

entire San Juan River Unit (proposed 

Unit 3) from our proposed critical 

habitat designation; this area includes 

196.8 km (118.2 mi) of Navajo Nation 

lands. We originally proposed two 

subunits within the San Juan River Unit. 

The proposed Subunit 3a (Canyon de 

Chelly) included 187.9 km (112.7 mi) 

along Tsaile Creek, Wheatfields Creek, 

Whiskey Creek, Coyote Wash, Crystal 

Creek, and Sonsela Creek in Apache 

County, Arizona, and San Juan County, 

New Mexico. In the proposed critical 

habitat designation, we stated that the 

Zuni bluehead sucker occupies all 

stream reaches in this subunit, and the 

subunit contains all of the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies. The 

proposed Subunit 3b (Little Whiskey 

Creek) included 8.9 km (5.5 mi) along 

Little Whiskey Creek in San Juan 

County, New Mexico. We identified this 

area as unoccupied in the proposed 

critical habitat designation, but we 

concluded that the area was essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies. 

Since the proposed critical habitat 

designation, we concluded in the final 

listing determination (79 FR 43132, July 

24, 2014) that the bluehead suckers in 

the Lower San Juan River watershed 

should not be recognized as part of the 

Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies. 

Rather, the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including peer review comments we 

received during the comment period for 

the 6-month extension (79 FR 1615, 

January 9, 2014), indicates that these 

populations in the proposed San Juan 

River Unit (Unit 3) are bluehead suckers 

rather than Zuni bluehead suckers. 

Therefore, while the originally proposed 

Unit 3 may be important for bluehead 

suckers, the originally proposed Unit 3 

can no longer be considered essential 

for the conservation of the Zuni 

bluehead sucker. Therefore, we are 

removing the San Juan River Unit from 

proposed critical habitat. 

Revised Proposed Unit Descriptions for 

the Zuni Bluehead Sucker 

Table 1, below, shows the occupancy, 

land ownership, and approximate areas 

of the revised proposed critical habitat 

units for the Zuni bluehead sucker. 

Following the table, we present a 

revised description of Subunit 1b. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19944 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—REVISED PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR ZUNI BLUEHEAD SUCKER

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Stream segment Occupied at the time of listing Land ownership 

Length of unit 

in kilometers 

(miles) 

Unit 1–Zuni River Unit 

Subunit 1a—Zuni River Headwaters 

Agua Remora .......................................... Yes .......................................................... Forest Service ......................................... 6.6 (4.1) 

Private ..................................................... 2.4 (1.5) 

Rio Nutria ................................................. Yes .......................................................... Zuni Pueblo ............................................. 38.9 (24.2) 

Forest Service ......................................... 4.1 (2.6) 

State of New Mexico ............................... 1.8 (1.1) 

Private ..................................................... 14.2 (8.8) 

Tampico Draw ......................................... Yes .......................................................... Forest Service ......................................... 2.3 (1.4) 

Private ..................................................... 3.7 (2.3) 

Tampico Spring ....................................... Yes .......................................................... Private ..................................................... 0.2 (0.1) 

Total .................................................. .................................................................. .................................................................. 74.2 (46.1) 

Subunit 1b—Zuni River Mainstem 

Zuni River ................................................ No ............................................................ Zuni Pueblo ............................................. 7.4 (4.6) 

Rio Pescado ............................................ No ............................................................ Zuni Pueblo ............................................. 18.3 (11.4) 

Cebolla Creek .......................................... No ............................................................ Zuni Pueblo ............................................. 3.7 (2.3) 

State of New Mexico ............................... 0.4 (0.2) 

Forest Service ......................................... 6.4 (4.0) 

Private ..................................................... 21.4 (13.3) 

Total .................................................. .................................................................. .................................................................. 57.6 (35.8) 

Unit 2—Kinlichee Creek Unit 

Subunit 2a—Kinlichee Creek 

Black Soil Wash ...................................... Yes .......................................................... Navajo Nation .......................................... 21.6 (13.4) 

Kinlichee Creek ....................................... Yes .......................................................... Navajo Nation .......................................... 47.1 (29.3) 

Scattered Willow Wash ........................... Yes .......................................................... Navajo Nation .......................................... 18.2 (11.3) 

Total .................................................. .................................................................. .................................................................. 86.9 (54.0) 

Subunit 2b—Red Clay Wash 

Red Clay Wash ....................................... No ............................................................ Navajo Nation .......................................... 9.6 (6.0) 

Total .................................................. .................................................................. .................................................................. 9.6 (6.0) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

Unit 1: Zuni River Unit 

Subunit 1b: Zuni River Mainstem: 

Subunit 1b consists of 57.6 km (35.8 mi) 

of potential Zuni bluehead sucker 

habitat along the Zuni River, Rio 

Pescado (below Pescado Dam), and 

Cebolla Creek in McKinley and Cibola 

Counties, New Mexico. Land within this 

subunit is primarily owned by Zuni 

Pueblo and private landowners, with a 

small amount of Forest Service and 

State land. The Zuni bluehead sucker 

historically occupied these streams but 

has not been found in the Zuni River or 

Rio Pescado since the mid-1990s 

(NMDGF 2004, p. 5), and has been 

extirpated from Cebolla Creek since at 

least 1979 (Hanson 1980, pp. 29, 34). 

We consider this unit unoccupied. 

When wetted, the Zuni River and Rio 

Pescado (below Pescado Dam) could 

provide important connections between 

occupied reaches in Subunit 1a and 

potential future populations in Cebolla 

Creek, which has been identified as 

containing suitable habitat in the past 

and could provide for significant 

population expansion. Therefore, this 

subunit is essential for the conservation 

of the Zuni bluehead sucker because it 

provides for connection between 

populations and also provides for the 

growth and expansion of the subspecies 

in this portion of its historical range. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if the Secretary 

determines the benefits of excluding the 

area outweigh the benefits of including 

the area as critical habitat, provided that 

such exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion of an area, we consider among 

other factors, the additional regulatory 

benefits that an area would receive 

through the analysis under section 7 of 

the Act addressing the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

as a result of actions with a Federal 

nexus (activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies), the educational benefits of 

identifying areas containing essential 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19945 

features that aid in the recovery of the 

listed species, and any ancillary benefits 

triggered by existing local, State or 

Federal laws as a result of the critical 

habitat designation. 

When considering the benefits of 

excluding a particular area, we consider, 

among other things, whether exclusion 

of a specific area is likely to incentivize 

or result in the conservation of the 

species and its habitat; the continuation, 

strengthening, or encouragement of 

partnerships; or implementation of a 

conservation or management plan for 

the species and its habitat. However, we 

are considering exclusion of the 

proposed critical habitat areas owned by 

the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo to 

the extent consistent with the 

requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Areas owned by the Zuni Pueblo 

that we are considering for exclusion 

from the final critical habitat 

designation include 38.9 km (24.2 mi) in 

Subunit 1a and 29.4 km (18.3 mi) in 

Subunit 1b. In addition, the Navajo 

Nation owns all of the proposed critical 

habitat in Subunit 2a (86.9 km (54 mi)) 

and Subunit 2b (9.6 km (6.0 mi)). For 

the reasons described below, the Service 

is also considering all of these Navajo 

Nation lands for exclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

In July 2012, we sent notification 

letters to the Tribes describing the 

exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, and we have engaged in 

conversations with both Tribes about 

the proposed designation to the extent 

possible without disclosing 

predecisional information. In March 

2013, we attended a coordination 

meeting with the Navajo Nation to 

discuss the proposed designation, and 

the Navajo Nation provided additional 

information regarding their land 

management practices and the potential 

for developing a fisheries management 

plan for sport and native fisheries on 

their lands. Since the meeting, we have 

received information from the Navajo 

Nation that they are in the process of 

amending the Navajo Nation Fisheries 

Management Plan to ensure that native 

fishes are the priority in stream fisheries 

management. We are also working with 

the Zuni Pueblo to develop a 

management plan for their lands. The 

Navajo Nation provided for review a 

draft management plan that specifically 

addresses the Zuni bluehead sucker, 

and we anticipate a final draft will be 

developed. Although we have not yet 

received a draft management plan from 

the Zuni Pueblo, we are working with 

the Pueblo to assist in the preparation 

of these documents to provide for the 

benefit of the subspecies and its habitat. 

In addition to these management 

plans under development by the Tribes, 

the Service also is considering exclusion 

of these Tribal lands based on the 

working relationship we have 

established with the Tribes. We are 

aware that designation of critical habitat 

on tribal lands is generally viewed as an 

intrusion on their sovereign abilities to 

manage natural resources in accordance 

with their own policies, customs, and 

laws. To this end, we have received 

public comments indicating that Tribes 

prefer to work with us on a governmentto-government basis. Therefore, we are 

considering exclusion of these Tribal 

lands in proposed Units 1 and 2 to 

maintain our working relationships with 

the Tribes. 

In the case of the Zuni bluehead 

sucker, the benefits of designating 

critical habitat include increasing public 

awareness of the presence of the Zuni 

bluehead sucker and the importance of 

habitat protection, and, where a Federal 

nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for the Zuni bluehead sucker 

due to protection from destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

A final decision on whether to 

exclude any areas will be based on the 

best scientific data available at the time 

of the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period and information about 

the economic impact of designation. We 

will take into account public comments 

and carefully weigh the benefits of 

exclusion versus inclusion of these 

areas. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

which includes the existing regulatory 

and socio-economic burden imposed on 

landowners, managers, or other resource 

users potentially affected by the 

designation of critical habitat (e.g., 

under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a 4(b)(2) economic 

exclusion analysis. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker (IEc 2014, entire). 

We began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat in order to focus our 

analysis on the key factors that are 

likely to result in incremental economic 

impacts. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out the geographic 

areas in which the critical habitat 

designation is unlikely to result in 

probable incremental economic impacts. 

In particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may be 

subject to conservation plans, land 

management plans, best management 

practices, or regulations that protect the 

habitat area as a result of the Federal 

listing status of the species. The 

screening analysis filters out particular 

areas of critical habitat that are already 

subject to such protections and assesses 

whether units are unoccupied by the 

species and may require additional 

management or conservation efforts as a 

result of the critical habitat designation 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19946 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for the species. This screening analysis 

combined with the information 

contained in our IEM are what we 

consider our draft economic analysis of 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

for the Zuni bluehead sucker and is 

summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct Federal agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 

feasible) and qualitative terms. 

Consistent with the Executive Orders’ 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act, may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly impacted 

entities, where practicable and 

reasonable. We assess to the extent 

practicable, the probable impacts, if 

sufficient data are available, to both 

directly and indirectly impacted 

entities. As part of our screening 

analysis, we considered the types of 

economic activities that are likely to 

occur within the areas likely affected by 

the critical habitat designation. In our 

evaluation of the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, 

first we identified, in the IEM dated 

June 21, 2013, probable incremental 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activity: (1) Federal lands 

management (Forest Service, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation); (2) roadway 

and bridge construction; (3) agriculture; 

(4) grazing; (5) groundwater pumping; 

(6) in-stream dams and diversions; (7) 

storage and distribution of chemical 

pollutants; (8) dredging; (9) commercial 

or residential development; (10) timber 

harvest; and (11) recreation (including 

sport fishing and sport-fish stocking, off 

highway vehicle activity). We 

considered each industry or category 

individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. In areas where the 

Zuni bluehead sucker is present, 

Federal agencies are already required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act on activities they fund, 

permit, or implement that may affect the 

subspecies. If we finalize this proposed 

critical habitat designation, 

consultations to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

would be incorporated into the existing 

consultation process that will also 

consider jeopardy to the listed 

subspecies. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

result from the subspecies being listed 

and those attributable to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., difference 

between the jeopardy and adverse 

modification standards) for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for Zuni bluehead sucker was 

proposed concurrently with the listing, 

it has been our experience that it is 

more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 

essential physical and biological 

features identified for critical habitat are 

the same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would result in sufficient 

harm or harassment to constitute 

jeopardy to the Zuni bluehead sucker 

would also likely adversely affect the 

essential physical and biological 

features of critical habitat. The IEM 

outlines our rationale concerning this 

limited distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat for this subspecies. This 

evaluation of the incremental effects has 

been used as the basis to evaluate the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this proposed designation of critical 

habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker totals approximately 228.4 km 

(141.9 mi), of which approximately 70 

percent (161.1 km (100.1 mi)) is 

currently occupied by the subspecies. In 

these areas, any actions that may affect 

the subspecies or its habitat would also 

affect designated critical habitat and it 

is unlikely that any additional 

conservation efforts would be 

recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the Zuni bluehead sucker. 

Therefore, only administrative costs are 

expected in approximately 70 percent of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, it is believed that, in most 

circumstances, these costs would 

predominantly be administrative in 

nature and would not be significant. 

The remaining 67.3 km (41.8 mi) (30 

percent of the total proposed critical 

habitat designation) are currently 

unoccupied by the subspecies but are 

essential for the conservation of the 

subspecies. In these unoccupied areas, 

any conservation efforts or associated 

probable impacts would be considered 

incremental effects attributed to the 

critical habitat designation. Within the 

67.3 km (41.8 mi) of unoccupied critical 

habitat, few actions are expected to 

occur that would result in section 7 

consultations or associated project 

modifications. In particular, Subunit 2b 

(9.6 km (6.0 mi)) occurs entirely on 

Navajo Nation lands, and based on the 

results of the coordination efforts with 

the Navajo Nation (see IEM), we do not 

anticipate that any projects will result in 

section 7 consultation within the 

proposed critical habitat areas on these 

lands. Subunit 1b (57.6 km (35.8 mi)) 

includes U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

private, State, and Zuni Pueblo lands. 

Communications with affected entities 

indicate that critical habitat designation 

is likely only to result in more than just 

a few consultations in this unit, with 

minor conservation efforts that would 

likely result in relatively low probable 

economic impacts. While current 

projects are not planned in proposed 

critical habitat areas on Tribal lands, 

impacts to future Tribal planning efforts 

could be affected by proposed critical 

habitat designation. These future costs 

are unknown but expected to be 

relatively small given the projections by 

effected entities; they are unlikely to 

exceed $100 million in any single year 

and therefore would not be significant. 

The entities most likely to incur 

incremental costs are parties to section 

7 consultations, including Federal 

action agencies and, in some cases, third 

parties, most frequently State agencies 

or municipalities. Activities we expect 

will be subject to consultations that may 

involve private entities as third parties 

are residential and commercial 

development that may occur on Tribal 

or private lands. However, based on 

coordination efforts with Tribal partners 

and State and local agencies, the cost to 

private entities within these sectors is 

expected to be relatively minor 

(administrative costs of less than 

$10,000 per consultation effort) and 

therefore would not be significant. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of the Zuni bluehead sucker 

critical habitat designation are expected 

to be limited to additional 

administrative effort as well as minor 

costs of conservation efforts resulting 

from a small number of future section 7 

consultations. This is due to two factors: 

(1) A large portion of proposed critical 

habitat stream reaches are considered to 

be occupied by the subspecies (70 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19947 

percent), and incremental impacts of 

critical habitat designation, other than 

administrative costs, are unlikely; and 

(2) in proposed areas that are not 

occupied by Zuni bluehead sucker (30 

percent), few actions are anticipated 

that will result in section 7 consultation 

or associated project modifications. At 

approximately $10,000 or less per 

consultation, in order to reach the 

threshold of $100 million of incremental 

administrative impacts in a single year, 

critical habitat designation would have 

to result in more than 11,000 

consultations in a single year. Thus, the 

annual administrative burden is 

unlikely to reach $100 million. While 

current development or other projects 

are not planned in proposed critical 

habitat areas on Tribal lands, future 

Tribal planning efforts could be affected 

by proposed critical habitat designation, 

but future probable incremental 

economic impacts are not likely to 

exceed $100 million in any single year. 

Additionally, as described above, our 

consideration of exclusions on Tribal 

lands in proposed Units 1 and 2 may 

result in the probable economic impact 

being less than anticipated. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

our consideration of economic impacts, 

as well as all aspects of the proposed 

rule and our amended required 

determinations. We may revise the 

proposed rule or supporting documents 

to incorporate or address information 

we receive during the public comment 

period. In particular, we may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, provided the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

The purpose of the draft 

environmental assessment, prepared 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), is to identify and disclose the 

environmental consequences resulting 

from the proposed action of designation 

of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker. In the draft environmental 

assessment, three alternatives are 

evaluated: Alternative A, the no action 

alternative; Alternative B, the proposed 

rule without exclusion or exemption 

areas; and Alternative C, the proposed 

rule with exclusion or exemption areas. 

The no action alternative is required by 

NEPA for comparison to the other 

alternatives analyzed in the draft 

environmental assessment. The no 

action alternative is equivalent to no 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker. Under 

Alternative B, critical habitat would be 

designated, as proposed, with no 

exclusions. Under Alternative C, critical 

habitat would be designated; however, 

Tribal lands on the Navajo Nation and 

Zuni Pueblo would be excluded from 

critical habitat designation. Our 

preliminary determination is that 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker will not have 

direct significant impacts on the human 

environment. However, we will further 

evaluate this issue as we complete our 

final environmental assessment. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the draft environmental assessment, as 

well as all aspects of the proposed rule. 

We may revise the proposed rule or 

supporting documents to incorporate or 

address information we receive during 

the comment period on the 

environmental consequences resulting 

from our designation of critical habitat. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our January 25, 2013, proposed rule 

(78 FR 5351), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

executive orders until we had evaluated 

the probable effects on landowners and 

stakeholders and the resulting probable 

economic impacts of the designation. 

Following our evaluation of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

resulting from the designation of critical 

habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, we 

have amended or affirmed our 

determinations below. Specifically, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

rule concerning Executive Orders 

(E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 

(Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 

(Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use), 

and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, 

based primarily on our evaluation of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, we 

are amending our required 

determinations concerning the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), and the President’s 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our evaluation of the probable 

economic impacts of the proposed 

designation, we provide our analysis for 

determining whether the proposed rule 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of our final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

The Service’s current understanding 

of the requirements under the RFA, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19948 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

amended, and following recent court 

decisions, is that Federal agencies are 

only required to evaluate the potential 

incremental impacts of rulemaking on 

those entities directly regulated by the 

rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not 

required to evaluate the potential 

impacts to indirectly regulated entities. 

The regulatory mechanism through 

which critical habitat protections are 

realized is section 7 of the Act, which 

requires Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, to ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried by the agency is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only 

Federal action agencies are directly 

subject to the specific regulatory 

requirement (avoiding destruction and 

adverse modification) imposed by 

critical habitat designation. 

Consequently, it is our position that 

only Federal action agencies would be 

directly regulated by this designation. 

There is no requirement under RFA to 

evaluate the potential impacts to entities 

not directly regulated. Moreover, 

Federal agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities 

would be directly regulated by this 

rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 

promulgated, the proposed critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Information for this analysis 

was gathered from the Small Business 

Administration, stakeholders, and the 

Service. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the proposed critical 

habitat designation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. Therefore, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA in conjunction with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1966)). 

However, when the range of the species 

includes States within the Tenth 

Circuit, such as that of Zuni bluehead 

sucker, under the Tenth Circuit ruling 

in Catron County Board of 

Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), 

we will undertake a NEPA analysis for 

critical habitat designation. In 

accordance with the Tenth Circuit, we 

have completed a draft environmental 

assessment to identify and disclose the 

environmental consequences resulting 

from the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. Our preliminary 

determination is that the designation of 

critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead 

sucker would not have direct significant 

impacts on the human environment. 

However, we will further evaluate this 

issue as we complete our final 

environmental assessment. 

Government-To-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In July 2012, we sent notification 

letters in to both the Navajo Nation and 

Zuni Pueblo describing the exclusion 

process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

and we have engaged in conversations 

with both Tribes about the proposed 

designation to the extent possible 

without disclosing predecisional 

information. We coordinated with the 

Navajo Nation in May, October, and 

November 2012, to organize Zuni 

bluehead surveys on Navajo lands. We 

sent out notification letters in January 

and February 2013 notifying the Tribes 

that the proposed rule had published in 

the Federal Register to allow for the 

maximum time to submit comments. 

Following those letters, we scheduled a 

meeting with the Navajo Nation in 

March 2013, to discuss the proposed 

rule, and the Navajo Nation provided 

additional information regarding their 

land management practices and 

expressed their interest in developing a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19949 

fisheries management plan for sport and 

native fisheries. In addition to the letters 

sent to Zuni Pueblo, a few telephone 

inquiries were initiated to see if the 

Pueblo would like to meet to discuss the 

proposed rule. At this time, no meeting 

has been scheduled. However, we are 

working with Zuni Pueblo to develop a 

management plan for their lands. In 

addition, we sent coordination letters on 

April 12, 2013, to both the Navajo 

Nation and Zuni Pueblo seeking 

information for our economic analysis. 

We will continue to communicate with 

all affected Tribes. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351), as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.95(e) by revising 

paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), and by 

removing paragraph (8), under the entry 

for ‘‘Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi)’’ as proposed to be 

amended on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 

5351), to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(e) Fishes. 

* * * * * 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi) 

* * * * * 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for the Zuni bluehead sucker 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19950 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14ap15.000</GPH>

( 

AZ 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker Critical Habitat 

Overview 

NM 

Unit 2: Kin lichee 

Creek Unit 

Unit 1: Zuni 

River Unit 

-Critical Habrtat 

Springs 

Roads Mi 0 5 10 15 20 

I I 

I I I I 

Km 0 5 10 15 20 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19951 

(6) Unit 1: Zuni River Unit, McKinley 

and Cibola Counties, New Mexico. Map 

of Unit 1 follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14AP15.001</GPH>

Zuni Bluehead Sucker Critical Habitat 

Unit 1 

Unit 1: Zuni River Unit 

River Headwater 

~Zuni River Mainstem Subunit 

- Critical Habitat 9 

Roads MiO 2 4 

I I 

I I I I 

KmO 2 4 6 8 

6 8 
19952 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 2: Kinlichee Creek Unit, 

Apache County, Arizona, and McKinley 

County, New Mexico. Map of Unit 2 

follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14AP15.002</GPH>

AZ 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker Critical Habitat 

Unit2 

Unit 2: Kin lichee 

Creek Unit 

Kinlichee Creek Subunit 

~ Red Clay Wash Subunit 

NM 

Kinlichee Creek 

- Critical Habitat 

-- Major Roads 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

Mi 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 

I 

1

1 1

1 

I 

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19953 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 23, 2015. 

Michael Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08277 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0041; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BA05 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final 

Determination on the Proposed 

Threatened Status for the West Coast 

Distinct Population Segment of Fisher 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

6-month extension of the final 

determination of whether to list the 

West Coast distinct population segment 

(DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti) as a 

threatened species. We also reopen the 

comment period on the proposed rule to 

list the species for an additional 30 

days. We are taking this action based on 

substantial disagreement regarding 

available information related to 

toxicants and rodenticides (including 

law enforcement information and trend 

data) and related to surveyed versus 

unsurveyed areas (including data on 

negative survey results) to help assess 

distribution and population trends. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted as they are already 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in the final rule. 

We will submit a final listing 

determination to the Federal Register 

on or before April 7, 2016. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 14, 2015. If you comment using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES), you must submit your 

comments by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time 

on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. In the 

Search box, enter the docket number for 

this proposed rule, which is FWS–R8– 

ES–2014–0041. Then click on the 

Search button. You may submit a 

comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ Please ensure that you have 

found the correct rulemaking before 

submitting your comment. 

(2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2014–0041; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 

Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon 

Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530– 

842–5763; facsimile 530–842–4517. 

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 October 7, 2014, we published a 

proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the 

West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). That proposal had a 90- 

day comment period, ending January 5, 

2015. On December 23, 2014, we 

extended the proposal’s comment 

period for an additional 30 days, ending 

February 4, 2015 (79 FR 76950). For a 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning the West Coast DPS of 

fisher, please refer to the October 7, 

2014, proposed listing rule (79 FR 

60419). We also solicited and received 

independent scientific review of the 

information contained in the proposed 

rule from peer reviewers with expertise 

in the West Coast DPS of fisher or 

similar species biology, in accordance 

with our July 1, 1994, peer review 

policy (59 FR 34270). 

Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.17(a) require that we take one of 

three actions within 1 year of a 

proposed listing and concurrent 

proposed designation of critical habitat: 

(1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) 

withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) 

extend the final determination by not 

more than 6 months, if there is 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency or accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the determination. 

Since the publication of the October 

7, 2014, proposed listing rule, there has 

been substantial disagreement regarding 

available information related to 

toxicants and rodenticides (including 

law enforcement information and trend 

data) and related to surveyed versus 

unsurveyed areas (including data on 

negative survey results) to help assess 

distribution and population trends. 

We find that there is substantial 

scientific uncertainty and disagreement 

about certain data relevant to our listing 

determination. Therefore, in 

consideration of these disagreements, 

we have determined that a 6-month 

extension of the final determination for 

this rulemaking is necessary, and we are 

hereby extending the final 

determination for 6 months in order to 

solicit and consider additional 

information that will help to clarify 

these issues and to fully analyze data 

that are relevant to our final listing 

determination. With this 6-month 

extension, we will make a final 

determination on the proposed rule no 

later than April 7, 2016. 

Information Requested 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed listing 

for the West Coast DPS of fisher that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419). We 

will consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposal be as 

accurate as possible and based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data. 

In consideration of the scientific 

disagreements about certain data, we are 

particularly interested in new 

information and comments regarding: 

(1) Information related to toxicants 

and rodenticides (including law 

enforcement information and trend 

data); 

(2) Information regarding areas that 

have been surveyed compared to areas 

that have not been surveyed. We are 

also interested in negative survey results 

to help assess distribution and 

population trends. 

If you previously submitted 

comments or information on the 

October 7, 2014, proposed rule, please 

do not resubmit them. We have 

incorporated previously submitted 

comments into the public record, and 

we will fully consider them in the 

preparation of our final determination. 

Our final determination concerning the 

proposed listing 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 the 

ADDRESSES section above. We request 

that you send comments only by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS