Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or Threatened, 18936-18938 [2013-07149]

Download as PDF 18936 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0920; FRL–9779–1] Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compounds from organic liquid storage. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA–R09– OAR–2012–0920], by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 229001 electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Peck, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3382, peck.cara@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local rule: SCAQMD Rule 463 Organic Liquid Storage. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: January 25, 2013. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2013–06427 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058; 4500030113] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or Threatened Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the Rosemont talussnail as endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available scientific information, we find that listing the Rosemont talussnail as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted, and, therefore, we are removing this species from the candidate list. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 28, 2013. ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above street address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602–242– 0210; facsimile 602–242–2513; email incomingazcorr@fws.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM 28MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register. This section summarizes the information we evaluated in order to determine that the Rosemont talussnail is not a species or subspecies and cannot be listed as such under the Act, and to remove it from the candidate list. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the Rosemont talussnail. This form is available on our national endangered species Web site: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/ (search for ‘‘Rosemont talussnail’’ in the Species Search box) or from the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R2–ES–2013– 0058, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Previous Federal Actions On June 24, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that Rosemont talussnail be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). Our receipt of the petition coincidentally fell within the processing period for our candidate notice of review (CNOR) for Fiscal Year 2010. On November 10, 2010, we included the Rosemont talussnail in the annual CNOR (75 FR 69222) through our own internal candidate assessment process and independent of the petition process, because we had already begun the analysis prior to receiving the petition. Candidate species are species for which we have sufficient information on file to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, because we are required to address the petition and make the appropriate findings, even though we already determined the species met the definition of a candidate species, in that same CNOR, we made a 90-day substantial and a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding for the Rosemont talussnail. In a December 1, 2011, letter, we informed the petitioner that we had reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the Rosemont talussnail under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We explained that the species had been assigned candidate VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 229001 status. We also explained that per the Multi-district Litigation Stipulated Settlement Agreement (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc00377-EGS (D. DC); Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377EGS (D.DC)), we are required to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register for the Rosemont talussnail in Fiscal Year 2013, which ends September 30, 2013. This not-warranted 12-month finding and the associated species assessment form fulfill that requirement of the Multi-district Litigation Settlement Agreement. Species Information The Rosemont talussnail was first described as a member of the family Helminthoglyptidae (Phylum Mollusca; Class Gastropoda, Subclass Pulmonata) described by Pilsbry (1939, pp. 348– 349) from the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains near Rosemont, Pima County, Arizona. Bequaert and Miller (1973, p. 115) and Turgeon et al. (1988, p. 146) subsequently recognized the Rosemont talussnail in their respective reviews of mollusks. However, Hoffman et al. (2012, pp. 310–313) recently demonstrated that the Rosemont talussnail was described in error and is actually the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (Sonorella walkeri). Initially, Pilsbry and Ferriss (1923, p. 90) treated the Rosemont talussnail from the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains (Station 49 near Rosemont) as Sonorella hesterna .Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) later described the Rosemont talussnail as a full species, S. rosemontensis, based on a single shell collected at Station 49 (Ferriss 1917– 1918, p. 2; Hoffman et al. 2012, pp. 1– 2). However, in his description of S. rosemontensis, Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) stated, ‘‘It was formerly considered to be identical with S. hesterna, but the well developed threads of the embryonic shell apparently indicate a different species. Were it not for the very different verge [male genitalia], this form would hardly be separated from S. walkeri.’’ Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 309) determined that Pilsbry (1939) confused the shell of the specimen he dissected with that of S. hesterna, and mistakenly dissected the gentilia from a different species of Sonorella. Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) described the genitalia as ‘‘very closely related to S. arida * * * being of the same general character.’’ Based on his writings, Pilsbry was well aware of the fact that the distinct features of S. rosemontensis resembled two different known species. The disparities in reproductive structures described for the Rosemont PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18937 talussnail, Sonorella rosemontensis, were first noted in earnest by Miller (1967, p. 70) where he stated the genitalia ‘‘resemble those of S. walkeri.’’ In discussing the Pilsbry (1939) description, Miller (1967, p. 70) went on to say that, ‘‘It is probable that he [Pilsbry] dissected a specimen of S. tumamocensis linearis by mistake.’’ Upon examination of genitalia, Miller (1967, p. 70) stated, ‘‘S. rosemontenis is closely related in all respects to S. walkeri.’’ These anatomical examinations revealed that the Rosemont talussnail, S. rosemontensis, closely resembles the Santa Rita talussnail, S. walkeri, strongly suggesting that the Rosemont talussnail may only be a subspecies of or the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115). In fact, the drawing of the reproductive organs of the Rosemont talussnail presented in Miller (1967, p. 260) does not appear to differ in any significant way from the reproductive organs of the Santa Rita talussnail (Hoffman et al. 2012, p. 309). Although it was suggested that the Rosemont talussnail may be a subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115), there is no information indicating such. A subspecies is a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species; it designates a population of a particular geographic region morphologically or genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs. Evidence suggests that the Rosemont and Santa Rita talussnail are simply the same species. Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 313) found no discernible differences in the shapes or sizes of the male or female reproductive organs among specimens, nor was there any discernible differences in the shape of the shells between the Rosemont talussnail and the Santa Rita talussnail. Therefore, based on the morphological data and the sympatric range of the Santa Rita and the Rosemont talussnails, Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 313) concluded that the Rosemont and Santa Rita talussnail are the same species. Evaluation of Listable Entity Under the Act, a ‘‘species’’ is defined as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Based on our review of the best available information, the original E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM 28MRP1 18938 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules description of the Rosemont talussnail (previously Sonorella rosemontensis) was made in error, and the taxonomic entity is actually the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (S. walkeri). Therefore, we conclude that the Rosemont talussnail (S. rosemontensis) is not a species under section 3(16) of the Act. We have reviewed the relevant literature, and we also find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail. Additionally, invertebrates are precluded by statute from DPS consideration. Therefore, we conclude that the petitioned entity does not constitute a listable entity and cannot be listed under the Act. Finding Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a listable entity and cannot be listed under the Act. The Rosemont talussnail (Sonorella rosemontensis) was subsumed into the Santa Rita talussnail (S. walkeri), which is a widespread and common species whose distribution extends across southern Arizona from the Santa Rita and Atascosa Mountain Ranges in Santa Cruz County; the Whetstone Mountains of Cochise County; and south into Sonora, Mexico (Pilsbry and Ferris 1915, p. 395; Bequaert and Miller 1973, p. 115; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2008, p. 2). Please submit any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the Santa Rita talussnail to our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor the Santa Rita talussnail and encourage its conservation. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS References Cited A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058, in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/, and upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). Authors The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Authority The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 229001 Dated: March 15, 2013. Rowan W. Gould, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2013–07149 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025; 4500030113] RIN 1018–AZ43 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing as Endangered and Designation of Critical Habitat for ˜ Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 3, 2012, proposal to add ˜ the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus to the list of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the reopening of comment on our October 3, 2012, proposal to ˜ designate critical habitat for the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat and an amended required determinations section for the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposals, the associated draft economic analysis for the critical habitat designation, and the amended required determinations. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rules. DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before April 29, 2013. 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 decisions on these actions. ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the October 3, 2012, proposed rule on the internet at PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061 or by mail from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain a copy of the draft economic analysis at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025. 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 listing proposal to Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061, and submit comments on the critical habitat proposal and associated draft economic analysis to Docket No. FWS–R2–ES– 2013–0025. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of the two dockets. (2) By hard copy: Submit comment on the listing proposal by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– 0061; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Submit comment on the critical habitat proposal and draft economic analysis by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments processing, Attn. FWS–R2– ES–2013–0025; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602) 242–0210; facsimile (602) 242–2513. 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 listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation for Echinomastus ˜ erectocentrus var. acunensis (acuna cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus) that was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2012 (77 E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM 28MRP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18936-18938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07149]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058; 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Rosemont talussnail as 
endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the 
best available scientific information, we find that listing the 
Rosemont talussnail as an endangered or threatened species is not 
warranted, and, therefore, we are removing this species from the 
candidate list.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 28, 
2013.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. Please submit 
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this 
finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602-
242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513; email incomingazcorr@fws.gov. If you 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) 
Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are 
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add 
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires 
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a

[[Page 18937]]

subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
    This section summarizes the information we evaluated in order to 
determine that the Rosemont talussnail is not a species or subspecies 
and cannot be listed as such under the Act, and to remove it from the 
candidate list. Additional material that we relied on is available in 
the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the 
Rosemont talussnail. This form is available on our national endangered 
species Web site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (search for ``Rosemont 
talussnail'' in the Species Search box) or from the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-
2013-0058, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 24, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity requesting that Rosemont talussnail be listed as 
endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under 
the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included 
the requisite identification information for the petitioner required at 
50 CFR 424.14(a). Our receipt of the petition coincidentally fell 
within the processing period for our candidate notice of review (CNOR) 
for Fiscal Year 2010. On November 10, 2010, we included the Rosemont 
talussnail in the annual CNOR (75 FR 69222) through our own internal 
candidate assessment process and independent of the petition process, 
because we had already begun the analysis prior to receiving the 
petition. Candidate species are species for which we have sufficient 
information on file to support a proposal to list as endangered or 
threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, because we are 
required to address the petition and make the appropriate findings, 
even though we already determined the species met the definition of a 
candidate species, in that same CNOR, we made a 90-day substantial and 
a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding for the Rosemont talussnail.
    In a December 1, 2011, letter, we informed the petitioner that we 
had reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined 
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the Rosemont 
talussnail under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We 
explained that the species had been assigned candidate status. We also 
explained that per the Multi-district Litigation Stipulated Settlement 
Agreement (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS (D. 
DC); Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS 
(D.DC)), we are required to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted 
12-month finding to the Federal Register for the Rosemont talussnail in 
Fiscal Year 2013, which ends September 30, 2013. This not-warranted 12-
month finding and the associated species assessment form fulfill that 
requirement of the Multi-district Litigation Settlement Agreement.

Species Information

    The Rosemont talussnail was first described as a member of the 
family Helminthoglyptidae (Phylum Mollusca; Class Gastropoda, Subclass 
Pulmonata) described by Pilsbry (1939, pp. 348-349) from the northern 
end of the Santa Rita Mountains near Rosemont, Pima County, Arizona. 
Bequaert and Miller (1973, p. 115) and Turgeon et al. (1988, p. 146) 
subsequently recognized the Rosemont talussnail in their respective 
reviews of mollusks. However, Hoffman et al. (2012, pp. 310-313) 
recently demonstrated that the Rosemont talussnail was described in 
error and is actually the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail 
(Sonorella walkeri).
    Initially, Pilsbry and Ferriss (1923, p. 90) treated the Rosemont 
talussnail from the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains (Station 
49 near Rosemont) as Sonorella hesterna .Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) later 
described the Rosemont talussnail as a full species, S. rosemontensis, 
based on a single shell collected at Station 49 (Ferriss 1917-1918, p. 
2; Hoffman et al. 2012, pp. 1-2). However, in his description of S. 
rosemontensis, Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) stated, ``It was formerly 
considered to be identical with S. hesterna, but the well developed 
threads of the embryonic shell apparently indicate a different species. 
Were it not for the very different verge [male genitalia], this form 
would hardly be separated from S. walkeri.'' Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 
309) determined that Pilsbry (1939) confused the shell of the specimen 
he dissected with that of S. hesterna, and mistakenly dissected the 
gentilia from a different species of Sonorella. Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) 
described the genitalia as ``very closely related to S. arida * * * 
being of the same general character.'' Based on his writings, Pilsbry 
was well aware of the fact that the distinct features of S. 
rosemontensis resembled two different known species.
    The disparities in reproductive structures described for the 
Rosemont talussnail, Sonorella rosemontensis, were first noted in 
earnest by Miller (1967, p. 70) where he stated the genitalia 
``resemble those of S. walkeri.'' In discussing the Pilsbry (1939) 
description, Miller (1967, p. 70) went on to say that, ``It is probable 
that he [Pilsbry] dissected a specimen of S. tumamocensis linearis by 
mistake.'' Upon examination of genitalia, Miller (1967, p. 70) stated, 
``S. rosemontenis is closely related in all respects to S. walkeri.'' 
These anatomical examinations revealed that the Rosemont talussnail, S. 
rosemontensis, closely resembles the Santa Rita talussnail, S. walkeri, 
strongly suggesting that the Rosemont talussnail may only be a 
subspecies of or the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller 
1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115). In fact, the drawing of the 
reproductive organs of the Rosemont talussnail presented in Miller 
(1967, p. 260) does not appear to differ in any significant way from 
the reproductive organs of the Santa Rita talussnail (Hoffman et al. 
2012, p. 309).
    Although it was suggested that the Rosemont talussnail may be a 
subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller 
1978, p. 115), there is no information indicating such. A subspecies is 
a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a 
species; it designates a population of a particular geographic region 
morphologically or genetically distinguishable from other such 
populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding 
successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs. Evidence 
suggests that the Rosemont and Santa Rita talussnail are simply the 
same species. Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 313) found no discernible 
differences in the shapes or sizes of the male or female reproductive 
organs among specimens, nor was there any discernible differences in 
the shape of the shells between the Rosemont talussnail and the Santa 
Rita talussnail. Therefore, based on the morphological data and the 
sympatric range of the Santa Rita and the Rosemont talussnails, Hoffman 
et al. (2012, p. 313) concluded that the Rosemont and Santa Rita 
talussnail are the same species.

Evaluation of Listable Entity

    Under the Act, a ``species'' is defined as including any subspecies 
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment 
(DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
    Based on our review of the best available information, the original

[[Page 18938]]

description of the Rosemont talussnail (previously Sonorella 
rosemontensis) was made in error, and the taxonomic entity is actually 
the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (S. walkeri). Therefore, 
we conclude that the Rosemont talussnail (S. rosemontensis) is not a 
species under section 3(16) of the Act. We have reviewed the relevant 
literature, and we also find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a 
subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail. Additionally, invertebrates 
are precluded by statute from DPS consideration. Therefore, we conclude 
that the petitioned entity does not constitute a listable entity and 
cannot be listed under the Act.

Finding

    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
we find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a listable entity and 
cannot be listed under the Act. The Rosemont talussnail (Sonorella 
rosemontensis) was subsumed into the Santa Rita talussnail (S. 
walkeri), which is a widespread and common species whose distribution 
extends across southern Arizona from the Santa Rita and Atascosa 
Mountain Ranges in Santa Cruz County; the Whetstone Mountains of 
Cochise County; and south into Sonora, Mexico (Pilsbry and Ferris 1915, 
p. 395; Bequaert and Miller 1973, p. 115; Arizona Game and Fish 
Department 2008, p. 2). Please submit any new information concerning 
the status of, or threats to, the Santa Rita talussnail to our Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 
available. New information will help us monitor the Santa Rita 
talussnail and encourage its conservation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058, in the 
Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form on the Internet 
at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/, and upon request from the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 15, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-07149 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P