Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33137 

include the OMB Control Number, 

3060–0298, in your correspondence. 

The Commission will also accept your 

comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received final OMB approval on May 13, 

2021, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

modifications to the Commission’s rules 

in 47 CFR part 51. 

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency 

may not conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

current, valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0298. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0298. 

OMB Approval Date: May 13, 2021. 

OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2024. 

Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than 

Tariff Review Plan). 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 2,925 respondents; 9,585 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1–50 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: One-time, 

biennial and on-occasion reporting 

requirements. 

Obligation To Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. The statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in sections 1–5, 201–205, 

208, 251–271, 403, 502, and 503 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 201–205, 

208, 251–271, 403, 502 and 503. 

Total Annual Burden: 244,477 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $1,584,000. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Respondents are not being asked to 

submit confidential information to the 

Commission. If the Commission 

requests respondents to submit 

information which respondents believe 

is confidential, respondents may request 

confidential treatment of such 

information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Privacy Act: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: Sections 201, 202, 

203, 204 and 205 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, (Act) as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, 204 

and 205, require that common carriers 

establish just and reasonable charges, 

practices, and regulations, which must 

be filed with the Commission to 

determine whether such schedules are 

just, reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory. On October 9, 2020, the 

Commission released the Order, FCC 

20–143, published at 85 FR 75894, 

which transitions intercarrier 

compensation for toll-free services 

either to lower, uniform rate caps or to 

bill-and-keep over approximately three 

years as a means of curtailing abuse of 

the 8YY intercarrier compensation 

regime. The Order requires price cap 

and rate-of-return carriers to establish 

separate rate elements for certain 

interstate and intrastate toll free and 

non-toll free services. Carriers are also 

required to lower the 8YY database 

query charges over three years, and are 

prohibited from charging for more than 

one query per call. Competitive local 

exchange carriers (LECs) assessing a 

tariffed intrastate or interstate Toll Free 

Database Query Charge must cap such 

charges and revise their tariffs to ensure 

that those charges do not exceed the 

rates charged by the competing 

incumbent LEC. 

The information collected through 

carriers’ tariffs is used by the 

Commission and state commissions to 

determine whether services offered are 

just and reasonable, as the Act requires. 

The tariffs and any supporting 

documentation are examined in order to 

determine if the services are offered in 

a just and reasonable manner. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13213 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] 

RIN 1018–BD49 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing the Kanab 

Ambersnail From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma 

haydeni kanabensis) from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. This determination is based on 

a thorough review of the best available 

scientific information. Our review 

indicates that the Kanab ambersnail is 

not a valid subspecies and therefore 

cannot be listed as an endangered entity 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 26, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the 

supporting documents we used in 

preparing this rule, and public 

comments we received are available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf may call the Federal Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, 

telephone: 801–975–3330. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: Kanab Ambersnail 

Questions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office; 2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50; West 

Valley City, Utah 84119. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf may call the Federal Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 15, 1991, we proposed 

to list the Kanab ambersnail as an 

endangered species (56 FR 58020). The 

species’ habitat was greatly reduced in 

size and the population declined, due to 

preparations for anticipated 

development. On April 17, 1992, we 

published a final rule listing the Kanab 

ambersnail as an endangered species (57 

FR 13657), but as explained in that rule, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33138 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

we did not designate critical habitat 

because we found that designation 

would be not prudent due to a danger 

of over-collection or purposeful harm or 

killing of snails if the locations of the 

snails were made public on critical 

habitat maps. On October 12, 1995, we 

finalized the Kanab ambersnail recovery 

plan (Service 1995, entire). 

We completed a 5-year review of the 

species’ status in July 2011 (Service 

2011, entire). As of the time of the 2011 

5-year review, several genetic studies 

indicated that at least one of the three 

populations identified as the Kanab 

ambersnail was potentially part of a 

different species or subspecies, but we 

did not consider those studies alone to 

be certain enough to recommend 

delisting at that time (Miller et al. 2000, 

p. 8; Stevens et al. 2000, p. 7; Culver et 

al. 2007, p. 3; Service 2011, pp. 8–9). 

The subsequent publication of a larger, 

more comprehensive study on the 

genetics of the Kanab ambersnail and 

the Oxyloma genus (Culver et al. 2013, 

entire) resulted in our proposed rule to 

delist Kanab ambersnail based on new 

taxonomic information indicating that it 

was not a valid taxon, published in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 

FR 487). Please refer to that proposed 

rule for a more detailed description of 

the Federal actions concerning this 

species that occurred prior to November 

26, 2019. 

Species Description and Habitat 

Information 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly related to delisting the 

Kanab ambersnail in this rule. For more 

information on the description, biology, 

ecology, and habitat of the Kanab 

ambersnail, please refer to the final 

listing rule published in the Federal 

Register on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 

13657); the Kanab ambersnail recovery 

plan (Service 1995); the most recent 5- 

year review for the Kanab ambersnail 

completed in July 2011 (Service 2011); 

or any of the documents referenced by 

this rule. The Service documents, 

personal communications, and a list of 

cited literature are available as 

supporting materials on http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055. 

The Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma 

haydeni kanabensis) was taxonomically 

identified as a terrestrial snail in the 

family Succineidae. Succineids are 

usually referred to as ambersnails due to 

their mottled grayish-amber to 

yellowish-amber colored shells 

(Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5). 

The Kanab ambersnail typically 

inhabits marshes and other wetlands 

watered by springs and seeps at the base 

of sandstone or limestone cliffs (Clarke 

1991, pp. 28–29; Spamer and Bogan 

1993, p. 296; Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 

309). Habitat vegetation can consist of 

cattail (Typha domingensis), sedge 

(Juncus spp.), native crimson 

monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis), 

watercress (Nasturtium officinale), 

native water sedge (Carex aquatilis), and 

maidenhair fern (Adiantum capillusveneris) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992; 

Stevens et al. 1997, p. 6; Sorensen 2005, 

p. 3). The Kanab ambersnail often 

inhabits dead and decaying litter and 

live stems of plants (Service 2011, p. 

11). 

When the Kanab ambersnail was 

listed, we knew of two populations in 

Utah (Three Lakes and Kanab Creek 

Canyon) and one population in Arizona 

(Vasey’s Paradise) (57 FR 13657, April 

17, 1992). The Kanab Creek Canyon 

population in Utah was extirpated by 

1991, after dewatering of the seep for 

livestock use severely reduced the 

available habitat. Kanab ambersnails 

were last found there in 1990, when 

three individuals were identified 

(Service 2011, p. 12). Currently, there 

are two naturally occurring populations 

of Kanab ambersnails (Vasey’s Paradise 

in Arizona, and Three Lakes in Utah) 

and one introduced population (Upper 

Elves Canyon in Arizona) established 

with individuals translocated from 

Vasey’s Paradise (Service 2011, p. 6). 

The Vasey’s Paradise population was 

discovered in 1991 (Spamer and Bogan 

1993, p. 47). Vasey’s Paradise is a 

riverside spring located approximately 

33 miles (mi) (53 kilometers (km)) 

downstream of Lee’s Ferry on the 

Colorado River, in Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona (Spamer and 

Bogan 1993, p. 37). Occupied and 

potential habitat at Vasey’s Paradise is 

9,041 square feet (ft2) (840 square meters 

(m2)) (Service 1995, p. ii). The 

population is protected by National Park 

Service regulations and the presence of 

poison ivy, which deters visitors 

(Stevens et al. 1997, p. 12; Sorensen 

2016, pers. comm.). 

Monitoring of the Vasey’s Paradise 

population from 2007 to present has 

relied on timed counts of live snails 

observed among the traditionally 

sampled vegetation patches. The timed 

count sampling provides a catch-perunit-effort (CPUE) estimate of relative 

abundance of the snails in each survey. 

Over the past decade, there have been 

seasonal and annual variations in CPUE 

estimates of the Vasey’s Paradise 

population. Overall the relative 

abundance of this Kanab ambersnail 

population has declined substantially 

from the levels observed in the late 

1990s and prior to 2002, when drought 

conditions and reduced spring flow 

became particularly severe (Sorensen 

2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1). This 

decline has continued since 2011 

(Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 

1). 

The most recent population estimate 

is from 2002, which estimated 3,124 

individuals and noted that population 

numbers could be highly variable from 

year to year (Gloss et al. 2005, p. 3). 

Fourteen individuals were collected in 

2008, for genetic analysis (Culver et al. 

2013, p. 7). A survey in 2016 found only 

one snail, but search conditions were 

difficult and time was limited (Sorensen 

2016, pers. comm.). 

The Three Lakes population is a series 

of small ponds on private land 

approximately 6 mi (10 km) northwest 

of Kanab, Utah (Clarke 1991, p. 28; 

Service 1995, p. 3). Occupied and 

potential habitat is approximately 4.94 

acres (ac) (2 hectares (ha)) (Service 1995, 

p. 3). Available habitat is wet meadow 

and marsh. The habitat was greatly 

reduced in size and the population 

declined beginning in 1991, due to 

preparations for anticipated 

development, which resulted in the 

original emergency listing (57 FR 13657, 

April 17, 1992). The development 

anticipated at the time of listing has not 

occurred, and Kanab ambersnails were 

found there in 2008 (Culver et al. 2013, 

p. 6) and 2016 (Sorensen 2016, pers. 

comm.). 

A timed count survey of the Three 

Lakes population was conducted in 

early October 2011 by Service, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, and 

Arizona Fish and Game Department 

biologists. The Three Lakes Kanab 

ambersnail population was robust with 

a CPUE estimate of 10.47 snails per 10 

minutes searched (Sorensen 2011, p. 

14). In 2016, the land was sold to Best 

Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has 

expressed a willingness to preserve the 

habitat. A followup survey of the Three 

Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was 

conducted by the same partners in early 

May 2017, with an estimated CPUE of 

158.75 snails per 10 minutes searched 

(Sorensen 2017, pers. comm.). 

Upper Elves Canyon is located 

approximately 83 mi (134 km) 

downstream of Vasey’s Paradise on the 

Colorado River, in Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona (Sorensen 2016, 

p. 1). Occupied and potential habitat is 

adjacent to a perennial seep and is 1,068 

ft2 (99.2 m2) (Sorensen 2005, p. 3). This 

population is protected by National Park 

Service regulations, as well as by its 

inaccessibility (Service 2011, p. 7). This 

population was established by the 

Arizona Fish and Game Department 

between 1998 and 2002, by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33139 

translocating 340 individuals from the 

Vasey’s Paradise population. Since 

2005, this population has been 

considered self-sustaining with an 

estimated population of approximately 

700 individuals (Sorensen 2005, p. 9). 

Between 2009 and 2015, timed count 

surveys of the translocated population 

at Upper Elves Chasm were conducted 

by Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

National Park Service biologists, and 

volunteers. Surveys over this timeframe 

documented a small but relatively stable 

Kanab ambersnail population at the site, 

with CPUE estimates between 0.85 to 

4.15 snails per 10 minutes searched 

(Sorensen 2015, p. 12). 

Taxonomy 

Kanab ambersnails were first 

collected in 1909, by James Ferriss from 

an area called ‘‘The Greens,’’ a vegetated 

seep approximately 6 mi (10 km) north 

of Kanab in Kanab Creek Canyon, Utah 

(57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Service 

1995, p. 2). However, ambersnails have 

not been found at the type locality since 

1991 (Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 314; 

Culver et al. 2013, p. 6). 

The snails collected by James Ferriss 

in 1909 were initially placed in the 

species Succinea hawkinisi, but Pilsbry 

(1948, p. 797) placed them in Oxyloma 

and created the subspecies kanabensis 

under the species haydeni (57 FR 13657, 

April 17, 1992). The subspecies 

kanabensis classification was 

considered to be temporary at the time, 

and the author recommended that the 

taxonomic status be reconsidered in the 

future (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Clarke 

1991, p. 23; 57 FR 13657, April 17, 

1992). 

We have assessed all available genetic 

information for the Kanab ambersnail 

(Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al. 

2000, entire; Culver et al. 2013, entire). 

Since the listing of Kanab ambersnail in 

1992 (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) and 

the publication of the Kanab ambersnail 

recovery plan in 1995 (Service 1995, 

entire), several studies on subspecies 

distribution, morphological 

characteristics, and genetic 

relationships to other Oxyloma species 

have been completed. We briefly 

describe these studies below. At this 

time, these studies represent the best 

scientific information available in order 

for us to analyze the Kanab ambersnail’s 

distribution and taxonomic changes. 

Various analyses can be done to 

determine genetic structure of a species, 

including analyses of: (1) Mitochondrial 

DNA, which is rapidly evolving and 

useful to determine recent populations; 

(2) nuclear microsatellite DNA, which 

has high amounts of genetic variation 

and can be used to look at populations 

within a species; (3) nuclear DNA, 

which is inherited equally from both 

parents (unlike mitochondrial DNA, 

which is inherited maternally); and (4) 

amplified fragment length 

polymorphisms (AFLP), which are used 

to sample multiple loci across the 

genome. 

Miller et al. (2000) used AFLP to 

determine intra- and inter-population 

genetic information for four Oxyloma 

species in Utah and Arizona. Among 

these, two Niobrara ambersnail 

(Oxyloma haydeni haydeni) locations 

were studied at Indian Gardens 

(Arizona) and Minus Nine Mile Spring 

(Arizona), and two Kanab ambersnail 

populations were studied at Three Lakes 

(Utah) and Vasey’s Paradise (Arizona) 

(Miller et al. 2000, pp. 1845–1946). 

From this study, the ambersnail 

population at Three Lakes appears more 

closely related to the Niobrara 

ambersnail population at Indian 

Gardens than to the ambersnail 

population at Vasey’s Paradise (Miller et 

al. 2000, p. 1852). Upper Elves Canyon 

was not included in this study. 

Stevens et al. (2000) used 

mitochondrial DNA and morphological 

analysis to distinguish Succineidae 

(Oxyloma, Catinella, and Succinea) 

populations in the United States and 

Canada. The authors collected over 450 

samples from seven U.S. States and 

Canadian provinces, including from 63 

different populations or locations of 

snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 4). 

Determining Oxyloma species based on 

morphology was shown to be inaccurate 

(Stevens et al. 2000, pp. 4–5, 42). 

Vasey’s Paradise did not cluster with 

the Three Lakes ambersnail population 

or the two sampled Niobrara ambersnail 

populations, leading the authors to 

suggest Vasey’s Paradise might 

represent a unique species (Stevens et 

al. 2000, p. 41). However, a later, more 

comprehensive study found that Vasey’s 

Paradise clustered closely enough with 

samples from other surrounding 

Oxyloma populations for them all to be 

considered part of the same Oxyloma 

species (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57). 

In this most recent and detailed peerreviewed study, ambersnails were 

collected from 12 locations in Arizona 

and Utah, with each location providing 

at least 14 ambersnail specimens 

(Culver et al. 2013, p. 5). Samples 

consisted of Kanab ambersnail, Niobrara 

ambersnail, blunt ambersnail (Oxyloma 

retusum), undescribed species of 

Oxyloma, and individuals from 

Catinella (used to provide an outgroup 

comparison) (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6). 

This study included samples from all 

three extant populations identified as 

Kanab ambersnail. Between the 

Oxyloma populations, shell morphology 

did not have the variation usually 

associated with different species, 

leading the authors to state that none of 

the 12 populations sampled was 

reproductively isolated from the others 

(Culver et al. 2013, p. 52). This 

information supports the finding that 

the three populations identified as 

Kanab ambersnail do not alone 

comprise a discrete taxon. 

Genetic results indicated that there 

was gene flow among all the 

populations sampled, most likely due to 

short- or long-distance dispersals from 

other populations (Culver et al. 2013, p. 

57). Additionally, Kanab ambersnail 

samples from Vasey’s Paradise did not 

cluster with the other two Kanab 

ambersnail populations (Culver et al. 

2013, pp. 51, 55). The authors 

concluded that the three populations of 

Kanab ambersnail are not a valid 

subspecies of Oxyloma haydeni and 

should instead be considered part of the 

same taxa as the ambersnails from the 

eight other populations of Oxyloma in 

Utah and Arizona that were sampled for 

comparison (Culver et al. 2013, entire). 

This study declined to positively 

identify a species-level taxon for these 

11 populations of ambersnail, due to 

lack of genetic information on the genus 

(Culver et al. 2013). The primary author 

stated later that her expert opinion was 

they should all, including those 

previously identified as Kanab 

ambersnail, be considered Niobrara 

ambersnail (Oxyloma hadenyi) (Culver 

2016, pers. comm.). The authors stated 

that specimens from the type locality of 

the Niobrara ambersnail in Nebraska 

could be examined for comparison to 

verify this conclusion (Franzen 1964, p. 

73; Culver et al. 2013, p. 57; Culver 

2016, pers. comm.), but to date, no such 

analysis has been done. 

The above-described Culver et al. 

(2013) study was released as a United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

Scientific Investigations Report, and the 

review approach was similar to that of 

manuscripts published by scientific 

journals. The report was initially 

reviewed by five reviewers and required 

subsequent revision. The report 

received an additional review following 

revision due to the complex subject 

matter. The response to reviewer 

comments and subsequent revised 

manuscript were reviewed by another 

independent geneticist to ensure that 

the author adequately addressed issues 

and comments brought up by reviewers 

(Sorensen 2014, pers. comm.). The 

subsequent revision that occurred after 

2011 resulted in more genetic 

information added to the final 2013 

manuscript, which further substantiated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33140 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the authors’ findings (Sorensen 2014, 

pers. comm). As a result, we have a high 

level of confidence in the results of the 

Culver et al. (2013) genetic study. 

For the Kanab ambersnail to be 

considered a distinct subspecies, 

nuclear and mitochondrial DNA tests 

should show that the three populations 

cluster together when compared to other 

populations of ambersnails (Culver et al. 

2013, p. 55). However, the Vasey’s 

Paradise population does not cluster 

with the other two Kanab ambersnail 

populations and the degree of variation 

shown in Vasey’s Paradise from the 

other populations is not unique enough 

to constitute a subspecies on its own, as 

it shares markers with several nearby 

populations of non-listed Oxyloma 

snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41; Culver 

et al. 2013, pp. 55–57). 

The genetic uniqueness in Vasey’s 

Paradise may be attributable to flooding, 

which can erode away ideal vegetation 

or habitat, leaving only a few 

individuals able to survive and 

reestablish the population at that site, 

creating genetic bottlenecks. Genetic 

diversity at these types of sites will 

often be lower than at sites that have 

experienced short- or long-distance 

dispersals (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). 

Furthermore, ambersnails have the 

ability to self-reproduce, allowing for 

colonization of new areas by only one 

individual. This ability may explain 

how many genetically distinct 

populations of Oxyloma developed in a 

relatively short time period (Culver et 

al. 2013, p. 56). At least one or more 

bottleneck events in the past, likely due 

to flooding, caused unusual population 

genetic events (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). 

Overall, these studies show that shell 

morphology and anatomical 

characteristics that were once 

considered diagnostic do not alone 

reliably correspond with the results 

from genetic analyses of Succineidae 

snails (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; 

Pigati et al. 2010, p. 523). Samples 

originally identified as different species 

or subspecies based on physical 

differences are consistently found to be 

related closely enough to qualify as 

members of the same species based on 

genetic studies (Culver et al. 2013, 

entire; Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens 

et al. 2000, entire). Traditionally, shell 

morphology, such as their slender and 

drawn-out spire and short shell 

aperture, was used to distinguish the 

Kanab ambersnail from other members 

of Oxyloma (Pilsbry 1948, pp. 797–798). 

However, shell shape can vary as much 

within a population as within a species 

(Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519). 

Therefore, it is important to consider 

other factors such as genetics, anatomy, 

and habitat to determine a species 

within Oxyloma (Hoagland and Davis 

1987, p. 519; Sorensen and Nelson 2002, 

p. 5). 

In addition to shell morphology, 

reproductive anatomy (phallus shape) 

was previously a main determining 

factor of the Oxyloma genus (Miller et 

al. 2000, p. 1853). However, anatomical 

descriptions used to classify the Kanab 

ambersnail had no quantifying factors, 

such as prostate gland length, and soft 

tissues were difficult to measure 

objectively (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Culver 

et al. 2013, pp. 52–53). It is difficult to 

achieve standard anatomical 

measurements with repeatability 

because of the flexibility and elasticity 

of soft tissues (Culver et al. 2013, p. 18). 

Overall, anatomical characteristics have 

been found to vary greatly within 

Oxyloma (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52). 

There have been at least two instances 

when a species of snail was placed in 

the wrong genus due to relying solely on 

the reproductive anatomy (Johnson et 

al. 1986, p. 105; Miller et al. 2000, p. 

1853). In another case, variation in 

anatomical structure was found in the 

blunt ambersnail, leading the authors to 

conclude that the species was not 

restricted geographically as initially 

believed (Franzen 1963, p. 94). Previous 

Oxyloma studies have used only one or 

two specimens to determine the species’ 

taxonomic status, which makes it 

difficult to properly assess the true 

status (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 

515). 

Standards for quantifying anatomy are 

minimal and not descriptive enough, 

with the use of such words as small, 

medium, and large, which are vague 

terms and not measurable (Hoagland 

and Davis 1987, p. 478). Anatomical 

characteristics should not be the only 

factor to determine a species within 

Oxyloma, even with an understanding 

of the individual and geographical 

variation (Franzen 1963, p. 83). 

Variation between populations, 

anatomical differences among 

individuals, overlapping habitat, and 

minimal repeatability with 

measurements of anatomical features 

make it difficult to rely on anatomical 

descriptions to determine species 

classification (Franzen 1964, p. 80; 

Sorensen and Nelson 2002, pp. 4–5). 

Overall, reproductive anatomy is likely 

not a good species indicator in snails; 

instead, genetic relationships provide 

the most reliable method of classifying 

taxa. 

In summary, these analyses present 

multiple interpretations of the 

taxonomy of the Kanab ambersnail, 

none of which correlates to that of our 

original listing. Although the exact 

taxonomy of the genus Oxyloma and its 

constituent species remains uncertain, it 

is clear that the populations designated 

as the Kanab ambersnail do not make 

up, together or separately, a valid 

subspecies. The 1992 final listing rule 

for the Kanab ambersnail (57 FR 13657; 

April 17, 1992) relied on the best 

available information at the time, and 

included only snails found in Vasey’s 

Paradise in Arizona and Three Lakes 

and Kanab Creek in Utah. This situation 

has changed with the addition of the 

2013 genetic study of the Oxyloma 

genus in Utah and Arizona (Culver et al. 

2013, entire). 

The various published and 

unpublished genetics reports described 

above offer different conclusions about 

how Succineid snails should be 

classified, particularly within the genus 

Oxyloma. However, none of the genetic 

studies provides support for Oxyloma 

haydeni kanabensis as a valid 

subspecies. Additionally, available 

genetic evidence suggests that at least 

one population identified as Kanab 

ambersnail is more closely related to 

other nearby Oxyloma populations than 

it is to the other two Kanab ambersnail 

populations. 

Therefore, we are delisting the Kanab 

ambersnail due to new taxonomic 

information that indicates that it is not 

a valid taxon, based on the best 

available science. The currently listed 

entity for the Kanab ambersnail, 

restricted to Vasey’s Paradise and Upper 

Elves Canyon, Arizona, and Three 

Lakes, Utah, is not a valid taxonomic 

subspecies. We are unable to evaluate 

the populations identified as the Kanab 

ambersnail relative to the larger entity 

because the larger entity has not yet 

been defined from a taxonomic 

perspective. If we had additional 

updated information available about the 

taxonomy of the Oxyloma genus, we 

would conduct a status assessment of 

the larger entity, but in this case we do 

not have enough information to conduct 

that analysis. We do not consider the 

absence of information on the larger 

taxonomy of a group to be sufficient 

reason to keep an invalid subspecies 

listed as endangered. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 

FR 487), we requested that all interested 

parties submit written comments on our 

proposal to delist the Kanab ambersnail 

by March 6, 2020. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal and State agencies, 

scientific experts and organizations, and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposal. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33141 

Newspaper notices inviting general 

public comment were published in the 

Salt Lake Tribune and Saint George 

News. We did not receive any requests 

for a public hearing. All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period was either 

incorporated directly into this final rule 

or is addressed below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) 

and our August 22, 2016 memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act 

(USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited 

expert opinion from seven 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise and familiarity with 

the Kanab ambersnail, its habitat, its 

taxonomy, its biological needs and 

potential threats, or principles of 

conservation biology. We received 

responses from five peer reviewers. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing determinations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. 

We reviewed and addressed all 

comments we received from the peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the proposed 

delisting of the Kanab ambersnail. The 

peer reviewers provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the final rule, 

which we include in this rule or address 

in the responses to comments below. 

One of the reviewers expressed support 

for the proposed action. The other four 

did not state support or opposition to 

the proposed changes. All reviewers 

found that, with their suggested 

changes: The proposed rule was 

accurate; we provided adequate analysis 

to support our proposed determination; 

there were no significant oversights, 

omissions, or inconsistencies; our 

conclusions were logical and supported 

by the evidence provided; and we 

included all pertinent literature to 

support our arguments, assumptions, 

and conclusions. 

All changes suggested by reviewers 

were incorporated into the text of this 

final rule. Such changes include 

additional details of population 

monitoring at all populations, an 

explanation of the rigorous review 

process for USGS reports, and a 

clarification on how shell morphology 

supports the conclusions in the Culver 

et al. 2013 study. Other minor editorial 

clarifications and corrections were also 

made based on peer reviewer comments. 

Public Comments 

We received seven letters from the 

public that provided comments on the 

proposed rule. Two of the commenters 

expressed their support for the proposed 

delisting and corroborated information 

we supplied in the rule. Four 

commenters expressed their opposition 

to it. Of these four, none presented 

substantive information to support their 

opposition. In all cases, the opposition 

was based on the importance of 

protecting rare species and ecosystems. 

While we agree that protecting rare 

species and the habitats in which they 

occur is important, it is not a relevant 

factor in this determination because 

Kanab ambersnail is not a valid taxon 

and is being delisted on that basis. 

One commenter provided some 

additional historical background 

regarding the naming and sampling of 

certain ambersnail sites mentioned in 

the proposed rule, but stated that this 

information did not affect the validity of 

the proposed action. We agree and 

thank the commenter for the additional 

detail and have added it to the record, 

but do not include it in our final rule 

as it does not impact our conclusions on 

taxonomy. 

Delisting Determination 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for listing, reclassifying, or removing 

species from the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the 

Act as including any species or 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). We may delist a species 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(e) if the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; 

(2) the species does not meet the 

definition of an endangered or a 

threatened species; or (3) the listed 

entity does not meet the statutory 

definition of a species. 

For the Kanab ambersnail, we 

conclude that the existing best available 

scientific information demonstrates that 

Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis does not 

represent a valid taxonomic entity and, 

therefore, does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘species’’ as defined in section 3(16) 

of the Act. Therefore, Oxyloma haydeni 

kanabensis no longer warrants listing 

under the Act. The Kanab ambersnail 

does not require a post-delisting 

monitoring plan because the 

requirements for a monitoring plan do 

not apply to species that are delisted for 

not meeting the statutory definition of a 

species. 

Effects of This Rule 

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to 

remove the Kanab ambersnail from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical 

habitat was ever designated for this 

subspecies, this rule does not affect 50 

CFR 17.95. 

The prohibitions and conservation 

measures provided by the Act no longer 

apply to the snail previously identified 

as the Kanab ambersnail. Interstate 

commerce, import, and export of the 

snails previously identified as the 

Kanab ambersnail are not prohibited 

under the Act. In addition, Federal 

agencies are no longer required to 

consult under section 7 of the Act on 

actions that may affect the snails 

previously identified as Kanab 

ambersnail or their habitat. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

The populations that were listed as 

Kanab ambersnail do not occur on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33142 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Tribal land. We have determined that 

while no Tribes will be directly affected 

by this action, the delisting may result 

in changes to the flow regime for the 

Colorado River in and adjacent to the 

Grand Canyon. Several Tribes have an 

historic affiliation with the Grand 

Canyon and could be affected by flow 

changes, should they occur. The 

potentially impacted Tribes are the 

Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian 

Tribes, the Hualapai, the Hopi, the 

Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos 

Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute, 

the Navajo, and the Zuni. These Tribes 

were notified in advance of the 

publication of the proposed rule and 

have been informed of the finalization 

of the delisting. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055 or 

upon request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

staff members of the Service’s Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 14, 2021, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Ambersnail, Kanab’’ under 

SNAILS from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Anissa Craghead, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13257 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[RTID 0648–XA797] 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2021, the 

Regional Administrator of the West 

Coast Region, NMFS, with the 

concurrence of the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, approved 

Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fishery Management Plan. 

Amendment 18 implements a rebuilding 

plan for the northern subpopulation of 

Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared 

overfished in June 2019. 

DATES: The amendment was approved 

on June 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coastal 

Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) as amended 

through Amendment 18, are available at 

the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 

Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384, or 

at this URL; https://www.pcouncil.org/ 

coastal-pelagic-species/fisherymanagement-plan-and-amendments/. 

The final Environmental Assessment 

(EA) prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

Amendment 18 is available on NMFS’ 

website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/ 

laws-and-policies/west-coast-regionnational-environmental-policy-actdocuments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS, at lynn.massey@

noaa.gov or 562–436–2462; or Kerry 

Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, at kerry.griffin@noaa.gov or 

503–820–2409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of 

the CPS FMP to include the rebuilding 

plan for Pacific sardine. There are no 

implementing regulations associated 

with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS 

did not promulgate proposed and final 

rules to implement this amendment. 

NMFS published a Notice of 

Availability for Amendment 18 on 

March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and 

solicited public comments through May 

17, 2021. NMFS received five public 

comments in support of Amendment 18, 

one from a student and four from 

prominent fishing industry groups. The 

industry groups included the California 

Wetfish Producers Association, the West 

Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the 

Sportfishing Association of California, 

and the West Coast Seafood Processors 

Association. NMFS received three 

public comments opposing Amendment 

18, one from a private citizen and two 

from the environmental nongovernmental organization Oceana. 

Oceana submitted two letters, one 

containing its public comment and the 

other containing a list of names that 

signed a petition campaigning against 

Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and 

responds to the public comments below. 

NMFS responded to comments related 

to NEPA compliance in the final EA 

prepared for Amendment 18 (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comment 1: Oceana argues that by 

adopting the recommended 

management strategy for the rebuilding 

plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo 

Management) considered in the 

supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see 

ADDRESSES), NMFS is continuing failed 

policies that led to the overfished 

determination. 

Response: This comment 

misunderstands the biology of Pacific 

sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP, 

and the extraordinary and precautionary 

measures that the Council has built into 

the framework for managing CPS. 

Pacific sardines are well known to 

experience dramatic swings in 

abundance in response to 

environmental conditions, even in the 

absence of fishing pressure. The recent 

population decline of Pacific sardine 

appears to be due to poor recruitment. 

Specifically, the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center’s (SWFSC) 2020 stock 

assessment states that recruitment has 

declined since 2005–2006 except for a 

brief period of modest recruitment 

success in 2009–2010, with the 2011– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES