Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58081 

deficiency within two years of such 

finding. 

III. Public Comment 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals for the next 

30 days. The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the ‘‘Date’’ and ‘‘Addresses’’ 

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action merely proposes to 

withdraw previous EPA actions, or 

portions thereof, on SIP revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of ozone standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley. As such it does not 

propose to impose additional 

requirements on any entity. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 

(October 4, 1993)); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999)); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355 (May 22, 2001)); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249; November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP does not apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 30, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22971 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–011; FRL–9729–4] 

RIN–2060–AQ84 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances—Fire 

Suppression and Explosion Protection 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

list three substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances in the fire suppression and 

explosion protection sector as 

acceptable subject to use restrictions 

under the EPA’s Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. 

This program implements section 612 of 

the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, 

which requires EPA to evaluate 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances and find them acceptable 

where they pose comparable or lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than other available 

substitutes. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, we are listing three fire 

suppression substitutes as acceptable 

subject to use restrictions as a direct 

final rule without a prior proposed rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule; in such case, the final 

rule will become effective as provided 

in the accompanying direct final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing or a request for a public hearing 

must be made as provided below by 

October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0111, by mail to the 

following: ‘‘OAR Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460.’’ Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. To expedite review, a 

second copy of the comments should be 

sent to Bella Maranion at the address 

listed below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bella Maranion, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (6205J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

343–9749; fax number: (202) 343–2363; 

email address: maranion.bella@epa.gov. 

The published versions of notices and 

rulemakings under the SNAP program 

are available on EPA’s Stratospheric 

Ozone Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes to list under 

SNAP certain substitutes for ozonedepleting substances for use in fire 

suppression applications. We have 

published a direct final rule listing three 

substitutes for ozone-depleting halons 

used in the fire suppression and 

explosion protection sector as 

acceptable subject to use restrictions in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed rule would regulate the 

use of Powdered Aerosol F (KSA®) and 

Powdered Aerosol G (Dry Sprinkler 

Powdered Aerosol (DSPA) Fixed 

Generators) by finding them acceptable 

subject to use conditions as substitutes 

for halon 1301 for use in total flooding 

fire suppression systems in normally 

unoccupied spaces. This action also 

proposes to find C7 Fluoroketone 

acceptable subject narrowed use limits 

as a substitute for halon 1211 for use as 

a streaming agent in portable fire 

extinguishers in nonresidential 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58082 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

applications. Halons are chemicals that 

were once widely used in the fire 

protection sector but have been banned 

from production in the U.S. since 1994 

because their emissions into the 

atmosphere are highly destructive to the 

stratospheric ozone layer. This action 

will provide users that need specialized 

fire protection applications with more 

options for alternatives to the use of 

halons. Businesses that may be 

regulated, either through manufacturing, 

distribution, installation and servicing, 

or use of the fire suppression equipment 

containing the substitutes are listed in 

the table below: 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES, BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS 

Code Description of regulated entities 

Construction ........................................................ 238210 Alarm system (e.g., fire, burglar), electric, installation only. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 325998 Fire extinguisher chemical preparations manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 332919 Nozzles, fire fighting, manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 334290 Fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 336611 Shipbuilding and repairing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 339999 Fire extinguishers, portable, manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 336411 Aircraft manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ...................................................... 336413 Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. If you have any questions about 

whether this action applies to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

III. What are the procedures for notice 

and comment on this rule? 

The direct final rule will be effective 

on December 18, 2012 without further 

notice unless we receive adverse 

comment or a request for a public 

hearing by October 19, 2012. If EPA 

receives adverse comment or a request 

for a public hearing, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that all or 

part of this rule will not take effect. If 

a public hearing is requested, EPA will 

provide notice in the Federal Register 

as to the location, date, and time. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second public comment period on this 

action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

You may claim that information in 

your comments is confidential business 

information, as allowed by 40 CFR part 

2. If you submit comments and include 

information that you claim as 

confidential business information, we 

request that you submit them directly to 

Bella Maranion in two versions: one 

clearly marked ‘‘Public’’ to be filed in 

the public docket, and the other marked 

‘‘Confidential’’ to be reviewed by 

authorized government personnel only. 

For further information, please see the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

OMB notified EPA on May 5, 2011, 

that it considers this action not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and it is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

proposed rule is an Agency 

determination. It contains no new 

requirements for reporting or 

recordkeeping. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart G of 40 

CFR part 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control numbers 2060–0226 (EPA ICR 

No. 1596.08). The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statutes unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entities are defined as (1) a small 

business that produces or uses fire 

suppressants as total flooding and/or 

streaming agents with 500 or fewer 

employees or total annual receipts of $5 

million or less; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond current industry 

practices. Today’s action effectively 

supports the introduction of new 

alternatives to the market for fire 

protection extinguishing systems, thus 

providing additional options for users 

making the transition away from ozonedepleting halons. 

Use of halon 1301 total flooding 

systems and halon 1211 as a streaming 

agent have historically been in specialty 

fire protection applications including 

essential electronics, civil aviation, 

military mobile weapon systems, oil and 

gas and other process industries, and 

merchant shipping with smaller 

segments of use including libraries, 

museums, and laboratories. The 

majority of halon system and 

extinguisher owners continue to 

maintain and refurbish existing systems 

and equipment since halon supplies 

continue to be available in the U.S. 

Owners of new facilities and purchasers 

of new fire suppression equipment 

make up the market for the new 

alternative agent systems and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58083 

equipment. They may also consider 

employing other available fire 

protection options including new, 

improved technology for early warning 

and smoke detection. Thus, EPA is 

providing more options to any entity, 

including small entities, by finding 

additional substitutes acceptable for 

use. The use restrictions imposed on the 

substitutes in today’s rule are consistent 

with the applications suggested by the 

submitter and with current industry 

practices. Therefore, we conclude that 

the rule does not impose any new cost 

on businesses. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. By 

introducing new substitutes, today’s 

rule gives additional flexibility to small 

entities that are concerned with fire 

suppression. EPA also has worked 

closely together with the NFPA, which 

conducts regular outreach with small 

entities and involves small state, local, 

and tribal governments in developing 

and implementing relevant fire 

protection standards and codes. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. By 

introducing new fire suppression 

substitutes, today’s rule provides an 

additional choice and flexibility to 

entities that are concerned with 

specialized fire protection applications. 

This proposed rule will provide 

additional options for fire protection 

subject to safety guidelines in industry 

standards. These standards are typically 

already required by state or local fire 

codes, so this action will not affect 

small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule will provide additional options for 

fire protection subject to safety 

guidelines in industry standards. These 

standards are typically already required 

by state or local fire codes, and this rule 

does not require state, local, or tribal 

governments to change their regulations. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This proposed rule will provide 

additional options for fire protection 

subject to safety guidelines in industry 

standards. These standards are typically 

already required by state or local fire 

codes, and this rule does not require 

tribal governments to change their 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in section II of the associated 

direct final rule. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to Powdered Aerosol 

F, Powdered Aerosol G (DSPA Fixed 

Generators), and C7 Fluoroketone. 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects) 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. EPA defers to 

existing NFPA voluntary consensus 

standards and Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) 

regulations that relate to the safe use of 

halon substitutes reviewed under SNAP. 

EPA refers users to the latest edition of 

NFPA 2010 Standard on Aerosol 

Extinguishing Systems which provides 

for safe use of aerosol extinguishing 

agents and technologies as well as 

NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire 

Extinguishers. Copies of these standards 

may be obtained by calling the NFPA’s 

telephone number for ordering 

publications at 1–800–344–3555. The 

NFPA 2010 and NFPA 10 standards 

meet the objectives of the rule by setting 

scientifically-based guidelines for safe 

exposure to halocarbon and inert gas 

agents and aerosol extinguishing agents 

as well as guidelines for portable 

extinguishers, respectively. In addition, 

EPA has worked in consultation with 

OSHA to encourage development of 

technical standards to be adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58084 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This rule would provide fire 

suppression substitutes that have no 

ODP and low or no GWP. The avoided 

ODS and GWP emissions would assist 

in restoring the stratospheric ozone 

layer, avoiding adverse climate impacts, 

and result in human health and 

environmental benefits. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 11, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23136 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2012–0077; 

4500030115] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 

Petitions To Delist U.S. Captive 

Populations of the Scimitar-Horned 

Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

findings and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (‘‘Service’’), announce 

90-day findings on two petitions to 

remove the U.S. captive-bred and U.S. 

captive populations of three antelope 

species, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx 

dammah), dama gazelle (Gazella dama), 

and addax (Addax nasomaculatus), 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife as determined 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act or ESA). Based 

on our review, we find that the petitions 

present substantial information 

indicating that delisting the U.S. captive 

animals or U.S. captive-bred members of 

these species may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a review of the 

status of the U.S. captive members of 

these species to determine if delisting 

the U.S. captive specimens is warranted. 

Based on the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month finding on these two 

petitions, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: The findings announced in this 

document were made on September 19, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: These findings are available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–HQ–ES–2012–0077. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

these findings is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning these findings to the above 

street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition, and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On June 29, 2010, we received two 

petitions, one dated June 29, 2010, from 

Nancie Marzulla, submitted on behalf of 

the Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA), 

and one dated June 28, 2010, from Anna 

M. Seidman submitted on behalf of 

Safari Club International and Safari 

Club International Foundation (SCI). 

The SCI petitioner requested that the 

‘‘U.S. captive populations’’ of three 

antelope species, the scimitar-horned 

oryx (Oryx dammah), dama gazelle 

(Gazella dama), and addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus), be removed from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) under the 

Act. The SCI petitioner also requested 

that we ‘‘correct the Endangered Species 

Act listing of scimitar-horned oryx, 

dama gazelle, and addax to specify that 

only the populations in the portion of 

their range outside of the United States 

are classified as endangered.’’ The EWA 

petitioner requested that the ‘‘U.S. 

captive-bred populations’’ of these same 

three species be removed from the List. 

Both petitions indicated that removal or 

delisting of the U.S. captive or U.S. 

captive-bred individuals of these 

species was warranted pursuant to 50 

CFR 424.11(d)(3) because the Service’s 

interpretation of the original data that 

these species are endangered in their 

entirety was in error. EWA’s petition 

contained an additional ground for 

recommending delisting of the ‘‘U.S. 

captive-bred populations’’ of these 

species on the basis that these 

‘‘populations’’ have recovered pursuant 

to 50 CFR 424.11(d)(2). Both petitions 

clearly identified themselves as such 

and included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). 

Previous Federal Action(s) 

Two subspecies of the dama gazelle, 

the Mhorr gazelle (Gazella dama mhorr) 

and Rio de Oro dama gazelle (G. d. 

lozanoi) were listed as endangered in 

their entirety, i.e. wherever found, on 

June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). On 

November 5, 1991, we published in the 

Federal Register (56 FR 56491) a 

proposed rule to list the scimitar-horned 

oryx, addax, and dama gazelle as 

endangered in their entireties. We reopened the comment period on the 

proposed rule to request information 

and comments from the public on June 

8, 1992 (57 FR 24220), July 24, 2003 (68 

FR 43706), and again on November 26, 

2003 (68 FR 66395). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS