Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64707

The ‘‘consensus principles’’ described 

in this letter include the following: 

• The definition of ‘‘quantitation’’

should account for both precision and 

bias. 

• EPA should consider different uses 

of the MDL and ML in the Clean Water 

Act program (as a start-up test for a 

single laboratory, as a figure of merit to 

characterize an analytical method, as a 

permit compliance level, etc.), and 

evaluate the applicability of the MDL 

and ML to these uses. 

• Definitions of and procedures for 

determining quantitation levels should 

take into account their use as regulatory 

compliance levels in NPDES permits, 

and the effects of routine variability 

within a laboratory on the results 

generated by the laboratory. 

EPA notes that some of these 

‘‘consensus principles’’ highlight 

existing aspects of approaches to 

detection and quantitation and provide 

a framework for future discussions with 

stakeholders. A more detailed 

description and additional discussion of 

these ‘‘consensus principles’’ is in 

Chapter 4 of the Revised Assessment 

Document. 

C. Technical Issues 

EPA considered, and is continuing to 

consider, several technical issues 

related to the development of detection 

and quantitation approaches. These 

issues are discussed in chapter 3 of the 

Revised Assessment Document. 

Commenters expressed concern 

regarding EPA’s consideration of several 

of these technical issues, specifically 

how these issues are, or are not, 

addressed by EPA’s MDL and ML. 

Specific concerns or suggestions 

expressed by commenters dealt with 

technical aspects of EPA’s assessment, 

such as treatment of sample blanks, 

instrument data censoring, false positive 

and false negative rates, and calculation 

of MLs. EPA addressed these comments 

in the Revised Assessment Document 

and/or the Response-to-Comments 

Document, and the Agency expects to 

further address these issues in a 

continued consultation with 

stakeholders. 

IV. Next Steps 

It is clear that there is a strong interest 

in improving current procedures and 

uses, but no consensus for a specific 

procedure or procedures has emerged 

among the laboratory, industry, 

regulatory or regulated communities. 

The Agency looks forward to working 

with stakeholders. Based on an analysis 

of comments received on the 2003 

assessment and proposed revisions to 

the MDL procedure, issues for 

consideration in future stakeholder 

consultations may include, but are not 

limited to, development of detection 

and quantitation procedures that: 

• Vary in the nature and extent of 

statistical rigor and laboratory 

performance checks depending on the 

end use of a calculated limit in CWA 

programs; 

• Account for more sources of 

variability, such as the variability 

between and within laboratories; 

• Require more then seven samples 

and collect samples over a long period 

of time; and 

• Use routine blank samples collected 

over long periods of time to account for 

background signals and temporal 

variability. 

EPA has engaged a neutral third party 

to ask stakeholders for suggestions for 

additional issues, and about their 

interest in working with EPA to revise 

existing procedures and/or adopt one or 

more alternative procedures.

Dated: November 1, 2004. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 04–24824 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136

[OW–2003–0002; FRL–7834–9] 

RIN 2040–AD53

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Procedures for Detection 

and Quantitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: On March 12, 2003, EPA 

published a document in the Federal 

Register that proposed revisions to the 

regulations for the definition and 

procedure for EPA’s method detection 

limit (MDL). The document also 

proposed to add to these regulations a 

definition of minimum level of 

quantitation (ML) and a procedure for 

developing it. The proposed rule 

requested comment on the revisions and 

additions. The MDL and ML are used to 

characterize the capabilities of 

analytical test procedures applied under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 

proposed revisions were based on EPA’s 

2003 assessment of approaches to 

determining detection and quantitation 

capabilities of analytical methods. 

Today’s document withdraws the 

proposed revisions. The proposed 

revisions were disfavored by the vast 

majority of commenters on the March 

2003 proposed rule, and the Agency has 

determined that these proposed 

revisions do not represent the most 

effective way to address the public’s and 

EPA’s concerns regarding approaches to, 

and use of, detection and quantitation 

values. The Agency believes, 

preliminarily, that new approaches 

submitted in comments to the proposed 

rule might better address the issues EPA 

sought to address in its proposed 

revisions and that these new approaches 

warrant further consideration and 

refinement. Hence, EPA plans to work 

with stakeholders to evaluate one or 

more approaches to detection and 

quantitation that will satisfy the needs 

of programs, regulations, and initiatives 

at the Federal level for use of detection 

and quantitation procedures, and to 

revise its existing procedures, as 

appropriate.

DATES: For judicial review purposes, 

this action is considered issued as of 

November 8, 2004. Under section 

509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 

judicial review of the Administrator’s 

action regarding guidelines establishing 

test procedures for analysis of pollutants 

can only be had by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals within 120 days after the 

decision is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. Under 40 

CFR 23.12, if within ten days of the 

issuance date of this action for purposes 

of judicial review EPA’s General 

Counsel receives two or more petitions 

filed in two or more United States 

Courts of Appeals, the General Counsel 

will notify the United States Judicial 

Panel of Multidistrict Litigation of all 

petitions received within the ten day 

period.

ADDRESSES: The docket for today’s 

action is available for public inspection 

under Docket ID No. OW–2003–0002 at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William A. Telliard; Engineering and 

Analysis Division (4303T); Office of 

Science and Technology; Office of 

Water; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Ariel Rios Building; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, or call (202) 

566–1061 or E-mail at 

telliard.william@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

64708 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

I. General Information 

A. What Entities Are Potentially 

Interested in This Action? 

Because EPA is withdrawing 

proposed regulatory changes, this action 

should not have any concrete effects on 

any entity. Various groups may, 

however, be interested in today’s 

decision. EPA regions, as well as States, 

Territories and Tribes authorized to 

implement the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program, issue permits that comply with 

the technology-based and water qualitybased requirements of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). In doing so, NPDES 

permitting authorities, including 

authorized States, Territories, and 

Tribes, make a number of discretionary 

choices associated with permit writing, 

including the selection of pollutants to 

be measured and, in many cases, limited 

in permits. If EPA has ‘‘approved’’

standardized testing procedures under 

40 CFR part 136 for the measurement of 

a given pollutant, the NPDES permit 

must require such analysis to be done in 

accordance with one of the approved 

testing procedures or an approved 

alternate test procedure. Many of the 

testing procedures approved by EPA 

include a specification for detection and 

quantitation levels that laboratories can 

be expected to achieve. Therefore, 

entities with NPDES permits may be 

interested in EPA’s withdrawal of the 

proposed revisions to the detection and 

quantitation procedures. In addition, 

States, Territories and Tribes must use 

the standardized testing procedures and 

achieve the associated detection and 

quantitation levels when providing 

certification of Federal licenses under 

Clean Water Act section 401. Categories 

and entities that may be interested in 

today’s decision include:

Category Examples of potentially interested entities 

State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal Governments .................................... States, Territories, and Tribes authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program; States, Territories, and Tribes providing certification 

under Clean Water Act section 401. 

Industry ..................................................................................................... Facilities that must conduct monitoring to comply with NPDES permits. 

Public ........................................................................................................ Individuals and groups that follow, comment on, or otherwise participate in NPDES permit proceedings. 

Municipalities ............................................................................................ POTWs that must conduct monitoring to comply with NPDES permits. 

Environmental Laboratories ...................................................................... Public or private laboratories that conduct compliance-monitoring analyses for NPDES permits. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

interested in this decision. This table 

lists the types of entities that EPA 

believes may potentially be interested in 

this decision. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table may also be 

interested. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. We have established an 

official public docket for this document 

under Docket ID No. OW–2003–0002. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, the March 12, 2003, 

document, and other supporting 

information related to this action. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, or which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s public docket. The official 

public docket is the collection of 

materials that is available for public 

viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. To view docket materials, 

please call ahead to schedule an 

appointment. Every user is entitled to 

copy 266 pages per day before incurring 

a charge. The Docket may charge 15 

cents for each page over the 266-page 

limit plus an administrative fee of 

$25.00. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, 

EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute, 

or which is not included in the official 

public docket, will not be available for 

public viewing in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility 

identified in I.B.1. 

C. What Other Information Is Available 

To Support This Action? 

You can obtain electronic copies of 

this document as well as copies of major 

supporting documents at EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience.

II. Legal Authority 

This action withdraws EPA’s March 

12, 2003, proposed revisions to 40 CFR 

part 136 and the proposed addition to 

40 CFR part 136.2. We take this action 

pursuant to sections 301(a), 304(h), and 

501(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1311(a), 1314(h) and 1361(a). 

III. Background 

A. Test Procedures Used for Clean 

Water Act Programs 

EPA proposes and promulgates test 

procedures at 40 CFR part 136 in 

accordance with section 304(h) of the 

CWA, which requires that the EPA 

Administrator ‘‘promulgate guidelines 

establishing test procedures for the 

analysis of pollutants’’ to be monitored 

and regulated under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). Test procedures are also 

known as analytical methods. EPA 

draws the analytical methods from a 

variety of sources, including methods 

developed by commercial vendors, EPA, 

and other government agencies, as well 

as methods from voluntary consensus 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64709

standards bodies (VCSBs) such as the 

American Public Health Association 

(APHA), the Water Environment 

Federation (WEF), and the American 

Water Works Association (AWWA), 

which jointly publish Standard Methods 

for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, the Association of Official 

Analytical Chemists (AOACInternational); and the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM International). An analytical 

method promulgated by EPA under 

CWA section 304(h) is considered 

approved by EPA for purposes of EPA’s 

NPDES permitting regulations. 

Among considerations for approval of 

an analytical method at 40 CFR part 136 

are the demonstrated performance 

characteristics of precision, bias, and 

sensitivity (i.e., detection and 

quantitation). EPA generally evaluates 

each of these characteristics to 

determine if the analytical method will 

yield results at concentrations of 

concern that are reliable enough to meet 

Agency needs for permitting and 

compliance monitoring under the CWA. 

Detection and quantitation limits have 

been the most controversial of these 

characteristics, particularly among 

members of the regulated community. 

B. Settlement Agreement 

Following promulgation of a new EPA 

analytical method at 40 CFR part 136 on 

June 8, 1999 (64 FR 30417), the Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers, the 

Chemical Manufacturers Association, 

and the Utility Water Act Group 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) and the American Forest 

and Paper Association (‘‘Intervenor’’) 

filed a lawsuit challenging the method. 

This lawsuit challenged specific aspects 

of the analytical method and the 

procedures used to establish method 

detection limits (MDLs) and minimum 

levels of quantitation (MLs) in all 

chemical analytical methods under the 

CWA. On October 19, 2000, EPA 

entered into a settlement agreement, 

with the Petitioners and Intervenor 

(Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

et al. v. EPA, No. 99–1420 (D.C. Cir.); 

the ‘‘settlement agreement’’).

Under the settlement agreement, EPA 

agreed to assess the procedures 

currently used by the Agency for 

determining detection and quantitation 

limits, as well as consider alternate 

procedures. EPA agreed to sign a notice 

for publication in the Federal Register

on or before February 28, 2003, and to 

invite public comment on its 

assessment. The settlement agreement 

also stated that EPA may propose 

modifications to the existing procedures 

for detection and quantitation. EPA 

signed the notice by the agreed date 

and, on March 12, 2003 (68 FR 11791), 

published a notice announcing the 

availability of its assessment. The 

document was entitled Technical 

Support Document for the Assessment 

of Detection and Quantitation 

Approaches (EPA–821–R–03–005, 

February 2003). In a separate document 

on the same day, EPA proposed 

revisions to the Agency’s existing MDL 

procedure at 40 CFR part 136 (68 FR 

11770). EPA provided a 120-day public 

comment period on both documents, 

and reopened the comment period for 

an additional 30 days, in response to 

requests from the Petitioners. Today’s 

document announces EPA’s final action 

withdrawing the revisions to 40 CFR 

part 136 that were proposed on March 

12, 2003. 

Under the settlement agreement, as 

amended, EPA also agreed to sign a 

notice taking final action on the 

assessment described above on or before 

November 1, 2004. In a separate Federal 

Register notice, EPA is also announcing 

the availability of a revised assessment 

document that addresses comments and 

procedures submitted in response to the 

2003 assessment. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Rule 

In the March 2003 proposed rule, EPA 

proposed to revise certain aspects of the 

existing procedure for determining the 

MDL in 40 CFR part 136, appendix B 

(Definition and Procedure for the 

Determination of the Method Detection 

Limit). EPA also requested comment on 

whether to add a definition of 

quantitation limit to part 136, and 

whether to add a procedure for 

determining the ML to appendix B. 

Details of the proposed revisions are 

presented and discussed in section VII 

of the March 2003 proposed rule, and 

include: (1) Proposed revisions to the 

definition of the MDL; (2) proposed 

technical revisions to the MDL 

procedure; (3) proposed clarifications 

and other minor editorial changes to the 

MDL procedure codified in part 136; 

and (4) a proposed definition of 

quantitation limit (ML) and a proposed 

procedure to calculate the ML. 

In section VII.E of the preamble to the 

March 2003 proposed rule, EPA 

explained that the Agency continues to 

approve analytical methods from 

organizations that do not necessarily use 

EPA’s MDL and ML procedures. EPA 

also recognized that there are alternative 

detection and quantitation approaches 

that may be used by method developers 

to determine analytical method 

sensitivity, and noted that the Agency 

includes analytical methods at 40 CFR 

part 136 that employ alternative 

approaches. In the preamble to the 

proposed rule, EPA specifically stated 

that ‘‘the use of detection and 

quantitation approaches from voluntary 

consensus standards bodies and other 

organizations is encouraged under the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act.’’ EPA also included 

in the proposed revisions to appendix B 

the statement that ‘‘an alternative 

procedure may be used (e.g., from a 

voluntary consensus standards body) to 

establish the sensitivity of an analytical 

method, provided the resulting 

detection limit meets the sensitivity 

needs for the specific application.’’

V. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received more than one hundred 

comment letters raising issues, concerns 

or suggestions on the proposed rule. 

EPA received comments from 23 

laboratories, 31 wastewater treatment 

plants, three Federal agencies, 11 State 

and county agencies, 23 industrial 

firms, three instrument manufacturers, 

19 trade organizations, four consultants, 

eight individuals, and one law firm 

representing the Petitioners. A summary 

of public comments and EPA’s 

responses are included in the Response 

to Comments document, which is in the 

official public docket supporting this 

action. 

Although a few commenters suggested 

that EPA adopt the revisions as 

proposed, most commenters noted that 

the proposed modifications are minor 

and do not attempt to make the 

fundamental changes that these 

commenters believe would be more 

appropriate. For example, some 

commenters stated that EPA’s proposed 

MDL revisions do not sufficiently 

account for all sources of routine interand intra-laboratory variability. Many of 

these commenters expressed support for 

concepts that were included with 

comments submitted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey and the American 

Council of Independent Laboratories. 

Other commenters suggested that EPA 

adopt detection and quantitation 

procedures published by ASTM 

International’s Committee D19 on Water 

(i.e., interlaboratory detection and 

quantitation estimates, known by the 

acronyms IDE and IQE.)

Commenters also questioned the 

appropriateness of the MDL and ML for 

all of the different uses for which the 

MDL and ML are employed in Clean 

Water Act programs. Commenters 

asserted that a single procedure is not 

appropriate for determining detection or 

quantitation limits that can 

appropriately support all CWA uses, 

such as a start-up test in a single 

laboratory, a value characterizing a 

given analytical method, a benchmark 

64710 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

for approval of a method modification 

or alternate test procedure, and a 

reporting or compliance limit. Several 

commenters stated that EPA, permit 

holders, and laboratories would be 

better served if detection and 

quantitation were determined through 

approaches quite different from those 

proposed. 

Some commenters encouraged EPA to 

allow use of alternative procedures for 

determining detection and quantitation 

levels. Some commenters suggested 

that, like EPA’s MDL and ML, other 

available concepts fall short of 

providing optimal procedures. For 

example, comments submitted by some 

laboratories indicated that the proposal 

submitted by the Inter-industry 

Analytical Group, which was discussed 

in the preamble to the March 2003 

proposed rule, would be useful only 

during initial phases of method 

development, but not as a routine 

laboratory tool to assess lab 

performance. Other commenters noted 

that the IDE and IQE procedures 

published by ASTM’s D19 committee, 

which were discussed in the 2003 

assessment of detection and 

quantitation approaches, also are 

intended only for interlaboratory use 

and are not appropriate for use in a 

single laboratory. 

Other commenters recommended that 

EPA contact the editorial committees of 

voluntary consensus standards bodies to 

begin a process of developing detection 

and quantitation procedures. Several 

commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the proposal and work with 

stakeholders to devise an approach that 

meets the Agency’s needs, rather than 

proceeding with the proposed revisions 

to the MDL. 

In response to these comments, EPA 

has decided to withdraw the proposed 

rule and has initiated a process to work 

with stakeholders on revisions to MDL 

and ML procedures. See Potential 

Stakeholder Process for Detection and 

Quantitation Procedures, 69 FR 55547, 

September 15, 2004. 

VI. Decision To Withdraw Proposal 

In today’s action, EPA is withdrawing 

the March 12, 2003, proposal to revise 

the MDL definition and procedure and 

to add a definition and procedure for 

determining the ML. EPA has decided to 

withdraw these proposed revisions 

because the Agency has concluded that 

approaches other than those set forth in 

the 2003 proposal have the potential for 

addressing concerns regarding 

development and use of detection and 

quantitation limits, and that those 

approaches warrant further 

consideration and refinement. The 

Agency generally sees merit in 

comments suggesting that EPA should 

continue to work collaboratively with 

stakeholders on these issues. EPA also 

notes that the comments generally 

disfavored the proposed revisions, and 

that there is no agreement among critics 

of the existing MDL and ML procedures 

about what changes should be adopted 

by the Agency for use in CWA 

programs. 

VII. Effect of Today’s Action on Existing 

MDL Procedure 

EPA plans to explore alternative 

concepts and approaches submitted in 

response to the two March 2003 Federal 

Register documents. These comments 

included sometimes detailed alternative 

approaches or other revisions to current 

EPA detection and quantitation 

procedures. EPA intends to further 

evaluate issues and detection and 

quantitation approaches suggested by 

commenters, and to solicit additional 

stakeholder input through 

consultations. The Agency believes that 

the body of public comment on the 

proposed rule provides a strong starting 

point for a continued collaborative 

consultation with stakeholders 

representing constituencies such as 

citizens, environmental organizations, 

permit writers, regulators and regulated 

industries. In a Federal Register notice 

published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 

55547), EPA announced that a neutral 

party is seeking a broad group of 

stakeholders willing to work together to 

define and address concerns about the 

way detection and quantitation values 

are calculated and used to support CWA 

programs. Such a process, if feasible, 

could begin as early as December 2004. 

The existing MDL procedure has been 

in place since 1984. Individual MDLs 

and MLs are included in many EPAapproved methods at 40 CFR part 136, 

and have provided laboratories and data 

users with limits for evaluating results 

of analytical measurements or analytical 

method selection. Although several 

commenters expressed concern with a 

number of technical and applicability 

issues regarding EPA’s current MDL and 

ML procedures (and EPA finds merit in 

this concern), other commenters 

supported their continued use because, 

in their experience, the MDL and ML 

values published in many of the 

approved EPA methods have served 

acceptably as default detection and 

quantitation levels for permits. By 

today’s action, EPA leaves the existing 

MDL procedure unchanged while it 

further considers the concerns raised by 

commenters. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Today’s action does not constitute a 

rule under section 551 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551. Hence, requirements of other 

regulatory statutes and Executive Orders 

that generally apply to rulemakings 

(e.g., the Unfunded Mandate Reform 

Act) do not apply to this action.

Dated: November 1, 2004. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–24823 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH40

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for the Sacramento Mountains 

Checkerspot Butterfly and Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period, notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment for the proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the Sacramento 

Mountains checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) 

(butterfly) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We are reopening the public comment 

period for the proposal to list this 

species as endangered with critical 

habitat to allow all interested parties to 

comment on the proposed listing and 

critical habitat designation, as well as 

the associated draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment. 

Comments previously submitted on the 

September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46575), 

proposed rule to list the butterfly as 

endangered with critical habitat need 

not be resubmitted as they have been 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in preparation 

of the final listing and critical habitat 

determination. We invite all interested 

parties to submit comments on this 

proposal.

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES