58876 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

denial letter was not long enough to 

allow requesters to respond and that 

this limited timeframe served to 

discourage people from appealing 

denial decisions. The petitioners 

requested that the timeframe be 

extended to 35 calendar days to match 

the timeframe NARA allows to appeal 

denials for access to records made under 

the provisions of the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) (see 36 CFR 

1250.72 (a)) and the Privacy Act (see 36 

CFR 1202.56 (a)). 

To conform to the requirements under 

the FOIA, the proposed change also 

requires that NARA must receive the 

written appeal within 35 calendar days 

of the date of NARA’s denial letter, 

instead of the requester filing an appeal 

no later than 10 working days after 

receiving NARA’s denial. The proposed 

change is more equitable, as the time in 

which a requester may receive NARA’s 

denial may fluctuate. We agree with the 

petitioners that the change from 10 

working days to 35 calendar days, 

corresponding with the length of time to 

make appeals under the FOIA, will be 

a service to researchers. 

We also propose to change the appeal 

official to the appropriate Presidential 

library director and to have the director 

respond to the appeal within 30 

working days. 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). As required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby 

certified that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because this rule applies to individual 

researchers. This proposed rule does not 

have any federalism implications.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1270 

Archives and records.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, NARA proposes to amend 

part 1270 of title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows:

PART 1270—PRESIDENTIAL 

RECORDS 

1. The authority citation for part 1270 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 2201–2207.

2. Amend § 1270.42 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as 

follows:

Subpart D—Access to Presidential 

Records

§ 1270.42 Denial of access to public; right 

to appeal. 

(a) Any person denied access to a 

Presidential record (hereinafter the 

requester) because of a determination 

that the record or a reasonable 

segregable portion of the record was (1) 

properly restricted under 44 U.S.C. 

2204(a), and (2) not placed in the public 

domain by the former President or his 

agent, may file an administrative appeal 

with the appropriate Presidential library 

director at the address cited in part 1253 

of this chapter. 

(b) All appeals must be received by 

NARA within 35 calendar days of the 

date of NARA’s denial letter.

* * * * *

(d) Upon receipt of an appeal, the 

appropriate Presidential library director 

has 30 working days from the date an 

appeal is received to consider the 

appeal and respond in writing to the 

requester. The director’s response must 

state whether or not the Presidential 

records requested are to be released and 

the basis for this determination. The 

director’s decision to withhold release 

of Presidential records is final and not 

subject to judicial review.

Dated: September 27, 2004. 

John W. Carlin, 

Archivist of the United States.

[FR Doc. 04–22051 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT57 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of Availability of the 

Draft Economic Analysis on the 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and reopening of the public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Santa Ana sucker 

(Catostomus santaanae), and the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. 

The comment period will provide the 

public, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and Tribes with an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments on this proposal and its 

respective draft economic analysis. 

Comments previously submitted for this 

proposed rule need not be resubmitted 

as they have already been incorporated 

into the public record and will be fully 

considered in any final decision.

DATES: The public comment period on 

the proposed designation and draft 

economic analysis is now reopened 

until October 12, 2004. We will accept 

comments and information until 5 p.m. 

PST on that date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by one 

of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 

Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, 

California 92009. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

above address, or fax your comments to 

(760) 431–9618. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw1sasu@r1.fws.gov. Please see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposed critical 

habitat rule for the Santa Ana sucker 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. Any 

comments received after the closing 

date may not be considered in the final 

decisions on this action. You may 

obtain copies of the proposed critical 

habitat designation by contacting the 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above 

address (telephone (760) 431–9440; 

facsimile (760) 431–9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited 

We solicit comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning our 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Santa Ana sucker and our draft 

economic analysis for the proposed 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58877

critical habitat designation. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat as provided by section 

4 of the Act, including whether the 

benefit of designation will outweigh any 

threats to the species due to designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Santa Ana 

sucker habitat, and what habitat is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities or families; 

(5) Whether the economic analysis 

adequately addresses the likely effects 

and resulting costs arising from the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

and other State laws as a result of the 

proposed critical habitat designation; 

(6) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions is 

consistent with the Service’s listing 

regulations regarding current practices 

and likely regulatory changes imposed 

as a result of the designation of critical 

habitat for the Santa Ana sucker; 

(7) The benefits of including or 

excluding lands covered by a Natural 

Community Conservation Plan or 

Habitat Conservation Plan or any other 

lands covered by an adequate 

management plan; 

(8) Whether the analysis adequately 

addresses the indirect effects, e.g., 

property tax losses due to reduced home 

construction, losses to local business 

due to reduced construction activity; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies land and water 

use regulatory controls that could result 

from the proposed critical habitat 

designation for this species; 

(10) Whether the analysis accurately 

defines and captures opportunity costs; 

(11) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs (e.g., housing costs) associated 

with land use controls that could arise 

from the designation of critical habitat 

for this species;

(12) Whether the designation of 

critical habitat for the sucker will result 

in disproportionate economic or other 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion from 

the final designation; 

(13) Whether the economic analysis is 

consistent with the Service’s listing 

regulations because this analysis should 

identify all costs related to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Santa Ana sucker and this designation 

was intended to take place at the time 

this species was listed; and 

(14) The draft economic analysis 

includes an appendix which provides 

an assessment of the potential benefits 

that may accrue to homeowners 

resulting from the amenity associated 

from living in the vicinity of a protected 

riparian corridor. 

a. Please comment on the 

appropriateness of including the 

analysis of amenities as identified in the 

appendix as a potential benefit 

associated with critical habitat 

designation without doing a complete 

analysis of that class of economic effect 

(such as stigma effects) in general and 

the Santa Ana sucker designation in 

particular. 

b. Please comment on the method 

employed to estimate this effect which 

relies on the combined results of two 

studies that measure the premium to 

homes located near protected or 

restored urban streams (Colby and 

Wishart 2002, Streiner and Loomis 

1995). 

c. Please comment on the 

appropriateness of the application itself, 

which applied the benefits to all areas 

of the designation. 

(15) Whether our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concern and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this rule by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit Internet 

comments to fw1sasu@r1.fws.gov in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

Santa Ana Sucker Critical Habitat’’ in 

your e-mail subject header and your 

name and return address in the body of 

your message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your Internet message, 

contact us directly by calling our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address, which 

we will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comments. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. To the 

extent consistent with applicable law, 

we will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Background 

On February 26, 2004, we 

concurrently published in the Federal 

Register a final rule (69 FR 8839) and 

a proposed rule (69 FR 8911) to 

designate critical habitat for the Santa 

Ana sucker. In order to comply with the 

designation deadline established by the 

district court, we were unable to open 

a public comment period, hold a public 

hearing, or complete an economic 

analysis of the final rule. Please refer to 

the final rule (69 FR 8839) for a 

complete explanation of our reasons for 

dispensing with the notice and 

comment procedures generally required 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act. To give the public an opportunity 

to comment on the critical habitat 

designation, including the opportunity 

for a public hearing, and to enable the 

Service to complete and circulate for 

public review an economic analysis of 

critical habitat designation, we 

published and solicited comment on a 

proposed rule (69 FR 8911) to designate 

critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker 

on approximately 21,129 acres (ac) 

(8,550 hectares (ha)) of land in Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, 

California. The original comment period 

on the proposed rule closed on April 26, 

2004. 

On August 19, 2004, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register

announcing the reopening of a 30-day 

comment period on the proposed rule 

and the holding of a public hearing on 

September 9, 2004, in Pasadena, 

California (69 FR 51416). The comment 

period was open until 5 p.m. PST on 

September 20, 2004.

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

we designate or revise critical habitat on 

the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration economic and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. Based 

upon the February 26, 2004, proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

Santa Ana sucker, we have prepared a 

draft economic analysis on the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

Retrospective costs total $4.2 million, 

with transportation comprising $3.4 

58878 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

million of those costs. The remainder of 

retrospective costs was split among 

OHV recreation, flood control agencies, 

and Federal agencies. Total prospective 

costs are $30.5 million assuming a three 

percent discount rate and $21.8 million 

with a seven percent discount rate. 

Annual prospective costs are estimated 

to be $2.0 million. Costs associated with 

transportation contribute 49 percent of 

the annual costs and overall prospective 

costs. Other leading activities include 

water supply, flood control agencies, 

and residential and commercial 

development. The draft economic 

analysis also includes an appendix 

which provides an assessment of the 

potential benefits that may accrue to 

homeowners resulting from the amenity 

associated from living in the vicinity of 

a protected riparian corridor. The 

method employed to estimate this effect 

relies on the combined results of two 

studies that measure the premium to 

homes located near protected or 

restored urban streams (Colby and 

Wishart 2002, Streiner and Loomis 

1995). We are now soliciting public 

comment on the draft economic analysis 

and appendix until the date specified 

above in DATES. We will also continue 

to accept comments concerning our 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Santa Ana sucker during this 

period. 

References Cited 

Colby, Bonnie and Steve Wishart. 2002. 

Quantifying the Influence of Desert 

Riparian Areas on Residential 

Property Values, The Appraisal 

Journal, July. 

Streiner, Carol and John B. Loomis. 

1995. Estimating the Benefits of Urban 

Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic 

Price Method, Rivers 5(4). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

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

Dated: September 27, 2004. 

Julie MacDonald, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–22196 Filed 9–29–04; 9:47 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P