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

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64711

section) on or before November 29, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials by any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

at the above address, or fax your 

comments to 505–346–2542. 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

R2FWE_AL@fws.gov. For directions on 

how to submit electronic filing of 

comments, see the ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ section below. 

You may obtain copies of the draft 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment by mail, 

review comments and materials 

received, and review supporting 

documentation used in preparation of 

this proposed rule, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan MacMullin, Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office (telephone 505–761–4706, 

facsimile 505–346–2542).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule, the draft economic 

analysis, and the draft environmental 

assessment. On the basis of public 

comment, during the development of 

our final determination we may find 

that areas proposed are not essential, are 

appropriate for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2), or not appropriate for exclusion; 

in all of these cases, this information 

would be incorporated into our final 

determination. 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 

benefits of designation will outweigh 

any threats to the species resulting from 

designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

distribution of the butterfly, the amount 

and distribution of the species’ habitat, 

and which habitat is essential to the 

conservation of the species, and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on the 

species or proposed critical habitat; 

(4) Whether our approach to listing or 

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 concerns and 

comments;

(5) Any foreseeable economic, 

environmental, or other impacts 

resulting from the proposed designation 

of critical habitat or coextensively from 

the proposed listing, and in particular, 

any impacts on small entities or 

families; 

(6) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs. If not, 

what other costs should be included; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the listing of the species or the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(8) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land use controls 

that derive from the designation; 

(9) Whether the designation will 

result in disproportionate economic 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion from 

the final designation; and 

(10) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation or 

coextensively from the listing. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit electronic 

comments in ASCII file format and 

avoid the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption. Please also 

include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–AH40’’ 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 New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

at (505) 346–2525. 

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 addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record 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 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. 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. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

Background 

The butterfly is restricted to meadows 

within the mixed-conifer forest at 

approximate elevations between 2,450 

and 2,750 meters (m) (8,000 and 9,000 

feet (ft)) in the vicinity of the Village of 

Cloudcroft, Otero County, New Mexico. 

Our proposed critical habitat 

designation includes the area found 

within an approximate 140 square km 

(54 square mi) polygon centered around 

the Village of Cloudcroft, Otero County, 

New Mexico, south of the Mescalero 

Apache Nation boundary. In the 

proposed rule, we determined that the 

butterfly was in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range because much of the remaining 

suitable habitat and the long term 

persistence of the butterfly were 

threatened. At that time, the known 

threats included: commercial and 

private development, Forest Service 

(FS) projects, fire suppression activities, 

highway reconstruction, off-highway 

vehicle use, and overgrazed range 

conditions. Additional background 

information is available in the 

September 6, 2001, proposed rule (66 

FR 46575). 

On September 8, 2003, the Center for 

Biological Diversity (Center) filed a 

complaint pursuant to the Act, 

challenging the failure of the Service to 

publish a final listing rule for the 

butterfly within the 1-year statutory 

deadline set by section 4 of the Act. The 

Service and the Center reached 

settlement in this case that was adopted 

as an order by the District Court for the 

District of New Mexico on June 3, 2004. 

The terms of the settlement agreement 

require us to submit a final listing and 

critical habitat determination for the 

butterfly to the Federal Register on or 

before December 15, 2004. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

consider economic and other relevant 

impacts prior to making a final decision 

on what areas to designate as critical 

habitat. We have developed a draft 

64712 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment for the 

proposal to designate certain areas as 

critical habitat for the butterfly. We 

solicit data and comments from the 

public on these draft documents, as well 

as on all aspects of the proposal (see

‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ section 

above). 

Our draft economic analysis suggests 

that the present value of future 

conservation measures associated with 

the butterfly is expected to range from 

$5.6 million to $8.6 million over 20 

years, or $533,000 to $816,000 annually. 

Approximately 55 percent of these costs 

result from anticipated project 

modifications primarily associated with 

utility projects, agriculture and 

ranching, and U.S. Forest Service land 

management. The remaining costs are 

generally administrative in nature. 

The Service, Otero County, New 

Mexico, Village of Cloudcroft, New 

Mexico, FS, and other stakeholders have 

completed a conservation plan for the 

butterfly. A notice of availability of this 

draft document published in the 

Federal Register on October 7, 2004 (69 

FR 60178). The goal of this strategy is 

to establish conservation measures 

needed for the conservation of the 

butterfly. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533) and implementing regulations at 

50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for 

adding species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. A 

species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened due to one or 

more of the five factors described in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Our final 

listing determination will analyze these 

factors and their application to the 

butterfly to evaluate whether the species 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species.

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

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

Dated: November 2, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–24869 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U