        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 120425024-5724-05]
        RIN 0648-XB089

        Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings; Third Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 23, 2015, NMFS and USFWS (or the Services) published a proposed rule to revise the listings of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; hereafter referred to as the green turtle) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We opened a public comment period that lasted through June 22, 2015. On June 17, 2015, we published a document extending the public comment period through July 27, 2015. On July 27, 2015, we published a document again extending the public comment period to August 26, 2015. Having received a request to further extend the comment period, with this document we further extend the comment period to September 25, 2015.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15271), is extended. Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be received by close of business on September 25, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          OR

          • Mail: Submit written comments to Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by the Services. All comments received will be a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Services will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). The proposed rule is available electronically at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm and http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov), or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS (ph. 904-731-3032, email annmarie_lauritsen@fws.gov). Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The green turtle is currently listed under the ESA as a threatened species globally, with the exception of the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations, which are listed as endangered. On March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15271), the Services published a proposed rule to revise these listings because we found that the green turtle is composed of 11 distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify for listing under the ESA. We proposed to remove the current listings and, in their place, list eight DPSs as threatened and three as endangered. We also proposed to apply existing protective regulations to the DPSs and to continue the existing critical habitat designation (i.e., waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico) in effect for the North Atlantic DPS. We solicited comments on these proposed actions and indicated that comments must be received by June 22, 2015. On June 7, 2015 (80 FR 34594), we announced additional public hearings and extended the public comment period through July 27, 2015. On July 27, 2015 (80 FR 44322), we extended the public comment period through August 26, 2015, due to a typhoon and the loss of internet in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). On August 17, 2015, we received a request to further extend the public comment period due to another typhoon and the loss of electricity in CNMI. We concur with this request and hereby extend the public comment period by an additional 30 days, until September 25, 2015. Previously submitted comments do not need to be resubmitted.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

          Dated: August 19, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
          Dated: August 18, 2015.
          James W. Kurth,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-21150 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a further status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse or threats to it.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on November 21, 2006. Comments and information concerning this finding may be submitted until further notice.

          ADDRESSES:
          Data, information, comments, and material concerning this finding may be submitted to the Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, WA 99206. The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Martin, Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), by telephone at (509) 891-6839, or by facsimile to (509) 891-6748.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base the finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information available in our files at the time of the petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish a notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial 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 information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.
        In making this finding, we evaluated information provided by the petitioners and contained in our files in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition provides “substantial information” that the petitioned action may be warranted.
        On October 18, 2004, we received a petition, dated October 14, 2004, from Forest Guardians, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, The Larch Company, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Oregon Natural Desert Association, and Western Watersheds Project (petitioners). The petitioners requested that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse be listed as threatened or endangered throughout its historic range in accordance with section 4 of the Act.

        We were required to complete a significant number of listing actions in 2005, pursuant to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements, and were unable to address the petition at that time. On January 18, 2005, we acknowledged receipt of the petition, and indicated to the petitioners that we would not be able to address the petition at that time due to other priorities relating to court orders and settlement agreements. On November 25, 2005, we received a Notice of Intent to Sue (NOI), dated November 22, 2005, for our failure to make a 90-day finding on the petition. On April 5, 2006, we received a formal complaint, which had been filed on March 20, 2006. On May 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court of Idaho granted a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between us and the petitioners, wherein we agreed to publish a 90-day finding on the petition by November 15, 2006. This finding constitutes our compliance with the settlement agreement.
        Previous Federal Actions
        We previously received a petition, dated March 14, 1995, to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout its historic range in the conterminous United States (Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1995). On October 26, 1999, we published a positive 90-day finding and initiated a status review to determine if listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was warranted (64 FR 57620). On October 11, 2000, we published a negative 12-month finding that determined the requested action was not warranted (65 FR 60391).
        Species Information

        The information summarized in this section is taken from the petition (cited as Forest Guardians et al. 2004) and our files.

        The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of seven recognized subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that have been described in North America, based primarily on geographic variation in overall size, plumage coloration and patterning, and the broadly defined ecosystems occupied (Connelly et al. 1998, p. 3). The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is the smallest subspecies. It has darker gray plumage, more pronounced spotting on the throat, and narrower markings on the underside than other subspecies. Historically, the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's range extended westward from the continental divide in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to northeastern California and eastern Oregon and Washington; southward to northern Nevada and central Utah; and northward through central and British Columbia.
        Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur in a variety of habitats within the northwestern United States and Canada, including sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian zones (Marks and Marks 1987, p. 40; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 326). Various upland habitats, with a component of denser riparian or mountain shrub habitat to provide escape cover, are important to the subspecies from spring to fall (Saab and Marks 1992, p. 171; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 327-329). The availability of suitable wintering habitat, containing a dominant component of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also thought to be a key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 54-57; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 329-330).

        Male sharp-tailed grouse employ elaborate courtship displays in the spring to attract females to central dancing grounds, called leks. Established leks may be used for many years, although the exact dancing locations may shift position over time and smaller satellite leks often form in the vicinity of historic leks. Interacting clusters of leks in a local area are defined as lek complexes (Schroeder et al. 2000, p. 3). Due to social structures within a lek and other influences, such as exposure to predation, leks seldom support more than 25 males (Moyles and Boag 1981, pp. 1579-1580; Rodgers 1992, p. 104; Connelly et al. 1998, p. 8). The few dominant males at a lek's center account for the majority of successful mating attempts (Johnsgard 1973, p. 314; Bradbury and Gibson 1983, pp. 119-120). Male Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may also display and establish specific dancing sites at leks during other seasons (Johnsgard 1973, p. 312; Moyles and Boag 1981, p. 1576; Marks and Marks 1987, p. xii; McDonald 1998, pp. 38-39).

        Spring-to-fall home range sizes of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are relatively small, generally less than 2 square kilometers (km2) (1.2 square miles (mi2)), and the areas used are usually in the vicinity of a lek. Females typically nest and rear their broods within 1.6 km (1 mi) of an active lek, although nesting more than 3 km (1.9 mi) from a lek has been recorded (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327). Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding grounds are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi) (Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327), although movements of up to 20 km (12.4 mi) have been recorded (Meints 1991, p. 53). The overall annual survival rate of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is relatively low, and ranges from roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995, p. 9; Connelly et al. 1998, p. 12).
        The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a lek is thought to be critical to the management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and this area should contain, or provide access to, suitable wintering habitats (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 326-332). Because of their influence on the subspecies' demographics, leks (including the surrounding area) can be used as the basis for describing the hierarchical assemblages of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. These assemblages range from local populations (single leks to lek complexes), to regional populations (potentially interacting local populations occupying small geographic areas, such as a county), to metapopulations (potentially interacting regional populations occupying larger geographic areas).

        Various historical accounts indicate that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was once much more abundant throughout its range where suitable habitats occurred (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 8-9; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-22). Excessive hunting in the mid- to late 19th century is thought to have been a major contributing factor to the extirpation of some local populations and the initial reduction of the subspecies' range (Hart et al. 1950, p. 60). Beginning in the early 1900s, the conversion of native habitats for crop production and habitat degradation as a result of heavy livestock grazing are thought to be the primary factors in further population declines and range reductions (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-59; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, p. 25; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 28-31; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have been extirpated from California (circa 1920), Nevada (circa 1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller and Graul 1980, p. 20; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). Past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution have isolated various extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

        At large geographic scales (e.g., States, ecoregions), the overall distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse appears to have changed little since the mid-1900s, and various sources have acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining accurate population estimates for the subspecies as a whole (Hart et al. 1950, p. 13; Rogers 1969, p. 42; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 18-19; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 2-3). However, when smaller geographic areas are considered, a general pattern of continued range reduction and population decline is apparent in a number of local and several regional populations from the mid-1900s to the present (Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; WDFW 1995, pp. 4-6; Ritcey 1995, pp. 2-4; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 4-8; Mitchell 1995, 1998; Hoffman 1995, 1998; Thier 1998; Chutter 1995). Based on the results from a 1979 questionnaire distributed to wildlife professionals throughout the subspecies' range, Miller and Graul (1980, p. 20) concluded that populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupied less than 10 percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming; 10 to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington; and 80 percent or more in British Columbia.
        The following individual State and province discussions represent the most recent available information on populations by State and Canadian province. Each discussion initially summarizes information from our files, as well as the best estimates of recognized experts during a February 2000 interagency species status review meeting (USFWS 2000), and an independent report that addressed the viability of the various extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Bart 2000, pp. 5-10). The State and province discussions also summarize the current status of each State's hunting regulations relating to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Finally, the State and province discussions summarize new information presented in the petition or that has become available in our files since 2000. For consistency, estimates of the spring breeding population are reported for each area. In general, the estimates of fall population sizes, which include annual reproduction and exclude over-winter mortality, are roughly double that of spring breeding population estimates.

          Colorado. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mumma (1999) and House (2000). The northwestern region of the State contains many interacting local populations with multiple leks that together constitute a distinct metapopulation. This metapopulation totaled roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population in 2000. The metapopulation occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco Counties, and is continuous with local populations in south-central Wyoming (see following discussion under Wyoming). Mesa County, in west-central Colorado, may still harbor a remnant local population, but the last confirmed sightings of birds in this area are from around 1985.
        The State of Colorado maintains a fall hunting season in the northwestern region, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. During the late 1990s, the annual State harvest estimate averaged 218 birds.
        The petition states that the metapopulation in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco Counties may have consisted of approximately 6,080 birds in approximately 2004, based on Hoffman (2002) (pp. 34-35 of the petition). The petition also states that population estimates for Colorado (based on the average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 2000 to 2004.

          Idaho. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from Mallet (2000). The southeastern region of the State contains many interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct metapopulation that totaled, as of 2000, roughly 6,000 to 13,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population occurs primarily south of Rexburg and east of Rupert, Idaho (Meints 1995, 1998), and is continuous with local populations in northern Utah (see following discussion under Utah). The upper Snake River region, including the Sand Creek and Tex Creek areas, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 600 birds in the spring breeding population (approximately 300 in each area). Birds from these two areas likely interact with one another and with the larger population in the southeastern region (Meints 1995, 1998). Washington and Adams Counties, in the west-central region, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 200 to 300 birds in the spring breeding population, which supports approximately 7 leks. This area is isolated from other regional populations. Translocation efforts began in the Shoshone Basin area of extreme south-central Idaho in 1992, and resulted in establishment of an isolated local population supporting at least three leks in 2000. This area may be continuous with a small population of reintroduced birds in northeastern Nevada (see following discussion under Nevada).
        The State of Idaho maintains a fall hunting season, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. The available information indicates that roughly 3,000 birds are harvested annually from the southeastern and upper Snake River regions.
        The petition states that the Shoshone Basin population may have consisted of 200 to 400 birds in 2004 (pp. 29-31 of the petition). The petition also states that population estimates for Idaho (based on average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 1999 to 2004.

          Montana. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from McCarthy (2000). Two small local populations may still occur in the northwestern region of the State, one in Lincoln County near the international boundary with British Columbia, and one in Powell County. The Lincoln County area supported fewer than 20 birds on a single lek in the 2000 spring breeding population. From 1987 through 1991, and again in 1996 and 1997, the Lincoln County population was augmented with birds translocated primarily from central British Columbia (one effort included birds translocated from southeastern Idaho). The Powell County area supported fewer than 50 birds on a few leks in the 2000 spring breeding population. Based on the evaluation of a limited number of specimens, birds in the Powell County population show a greater morphological affinity to the plains subspecies (T. p. jamesi); however, these birds show a greater genetic affinity to the Columbian subspecies (Warheit and Schroeder 2003, p. 5). Therefore, the taxonomic status of this population remains in question. The two local Montana populations are isolated from one another and from other regional populations. During the early 1970s and again in 1980, limited efforts to reintroduce sharp-tailed grouse to the National Bison Range (roughly 50 km northwest of Missoula) were conducted with birds translocated from southeastern Idaho. It is unlikely that any of these birds or their offspring persisted in the area (Wood 1991, p. 6).
        The State of Montana does not have an open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
        The petition states that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may have been extirpated in Montana by 2004 (p. 35 of the petition).

          Nevada. The information in this paragraph is taken from Morros (1999) and Crawforth (2000). During the spring of 1999, 54 birds from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho were translocated to the Snake Mountains in Elko County. Census information from 2000 indicated there were roughly 20 to 40 birds remaining from this initial effort.
        No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Nevada.
        According to a source cited in the petition (Stiver et al. (2002), cited on p. 32 of the petition), 196 birds were reintroduced between 1999 and 2002. No additional population estimates were provided. This reintroduced local population may be continuous with reintroduced birds in south-central Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).

          Oregon. The information in this paragraph is taken from Crawford and Coggins (2000). From 1991 through 1997, a total of 179 birds were translocated into Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon. Translocated birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho. Census information in 2000 indicated that roughly 15 to 30 individuals, supporting one or a few leks, existed in the spring breeding population in an area several miles from the initial release site.

        No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Oregon.
        According to a source cited in the petition (ODFW (2001), cited on p. 29 of the petition), an additional 33 birds were translocated in 2001, and the estimated population at that time was 80 birds. The petition, citing personal communication with C. Braun, states that translocation efforts in Oregon have likely failed and that the population appears to be extirpated from the State.

          Utah. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mitchell (2000). The northern region of the State contains numerous, interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct, interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population is continuous with the population in southeastern Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).
        The State of Utah reopened its hunting season in 1998, and, over the first 3 years, issued 663, 2-bird permits in a limited-entry hunt. The State harvest estimates for 1998, 1999, and 2000 were 201, 462, and 233 birds, respectively.
        The petition states that the Utah population (based on estimates of average number of males per lek) fluctuates widely from year to year, and may have declined by 50 percent over the 4-year period from 1998 through 2001 (pp. 33-34 of the petition).

          Washington. Except as noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from Schroeder (2000) and Cawston (2000). Eight local populations occur in the north-central region of the State; four likely have multiple leks, and four consist of single or few leks (Schroeder et al. 2000, p. 98). In 2000, the overall estimate was approximately 860 individuals in the spring breeding population; the 2005 estimate was 578 individuals (Schroeder 2005, p. 16). Some minimal interaction may occur between a few local populations, while others are isolated. The Washington population is isolated from other regional populations. Recent genetic analyses indicate that the State population was likely experiencing inbreeding, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other stable populations have been translocated to Washington to address this potential threat. The genetic analyses indicate that the birds in Washington may have a different genetic profile than other populations, and that they may currently be on a different evolutionary trajectory (Warheit and Schroeder 2001, p. 5) due to these genetic differences and their isolation from other populations. Because the genetic differences may result from isolation and inbreeding, translocation efforts are targeted at preserving any genetic uniqueness while increasing genetic diversity. During the spring of 1998, 1999, and 2000, translocation efforts were conducted to augment one of the remnant local populations in north-central Washington. Translocated birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and from one of the larger local populations in Washington. Additional translocation efforts were undertaken during the spring of 2005 and 2006, to augment three additional Washington populations (Hays 2006). Current plans call for a third consecutive year in 2007 to complete these augmentation efforts. Roughly half of the translocated birds for these efforts originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho, and the rest originated from the metapopulation in central British Columbia (see following discussion under British Columbia).
        The State of Washington has not had a hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse since 1988.
        According to the petition (p. 28), the total Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population in the State of Washington was estimated to be 618 birds in 2002.

          Wyoming. The information in this paragraph is taken from Kruse (1999). Available information indicates that one population exists in the south-central region of the State that consisted of roughly 100 to 500 birds in the spring breeding population and supported multiple leks in 2000. The population occurs in Carbon County and is continuous with the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado (see previous discussion under Colorado).
        No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Wyoming.
        The petition cites personal communication with T. Wooley (no affiliation given) that the Wyoming population may have totaled approximately 600 to 700 birds in 2004 (pp. 31-32 of the petition).

          British Columbia, Canada. The information in this paragraph is taken from M. Chutter, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch (1995). The central region of British Columbia (Fraser Plateau) contains numerous interacting local populations with multiple leks, which comprise a distinct interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 to 10,000 birds in the spring breeding population. The area directly south of Cranbrook (southeastern region) may contain one local population with a single to few leks. This population is isolated from other regional populations. The area south of Merritt to the Washington border (south-central region) contains individual birds or small flocks during the winter, with no breeding behavior (i.e., leks) apparent.
        British Columbia currently prohibits hunting of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in native grassland habitats (i.e., the southern portion of the subspecies' Provincial distribution). Accurate harvest estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout the remainder of the Province are not available.
        The petition cites Leupin's (2002) estimate that the population in British Columbia may have consisted of approximately 10,100 birds in 2002, based on extrapolations of estimated densities across potentially suitable habitats (pp. 36-37 of the petition).
        Summary of Subspecies' Status

        Based on the best available scientific information in 2000, the rangewide estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's spring breeding population was approximately 22,500 to 35,500 individuals, with approximately 18,000 to 25,500 individuals occurring within the conterminous United States. This total population occupied approximately 79,500 km2 (31,000 mi2) rangewide, and approximately 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) within the conterminous United States, in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 5). Currently, roughly 95 percent of all Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur within the 3 remaining metapopulations: In northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming; southeastern Idaho and northern Utah; and central British Columbia (Bart 2000, p. 8). By comparing information provided in the petition (pp. 30-37) with data we have in our files, we determined that the petition indicates that the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming may have increased by roughly 25 percent between 2000 and 2004; the metapopulation in central British Columbia may have increased by roughly 5 percent during the same period; and the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and northern Utah may have increased slightly (no percentage estimate available).

        By comparing the available information in our files with information contained in the 2004 petition, the estimated minimum net increase in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance between 2000 and 2004 would be roughly 9 percent, both rangewide and within the conterminous United States, as indicated by the petition (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 30-37 of the petition). If we were to assume a worst case analysis, i.e., that there was no increase in areas occupied by the metapopulations, the total area occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, both rangewide and within the conterminous United States, may have decreased by less than 1 percent between 2000 and 2004 due to the possible extirpation of several discrete populations (Bart 2000, p. 8; p. 38 of the petition). These estimates of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are derived from data provided in the petition, and do not represent our estimates of trends. We and the petitioners acknowledge that reliable trends are not determinable from available data (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 31-35, 38 of the petition).
        The petition indicates that abundance estimates for several of the discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse fluctuate widely between years, and therefore the populations cannot be considered stable (pp. 31, 34-35 of the petition). However, species of prairie grouse, with intrinsically high reproductive potential and low survival, periodically undergo wide fluctuations in numbers (e.g., seasonally, yearly), as is demonstrated by spring versus fall population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. This variability in abundance does not necessarily indicate instability in these species, but rather represents an inherent component of their life history strategy. Little documentation exists concerning possible ranges of natural seasonal or yearly variation in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations, so we are unable to provide estimates of fluctuations due to existing threats. The various survey methodologies and population indices used throughout the subspecies' range make it difficult to obtain accurate or consistent population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 8). In some instances, apparent fluctuations in population abundance may be an artifact of the survey methodology used, survey effort expended, or reliance on variable population estimators. As indicated in the petition (pp. 31-35 of the petition), the available information does not reveal reliable trends (neither positive nor negative) in abundance for the larger metapopulations.

        Most of the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, i.e., populations outside the three metapopulations, may be extirpated within a decade or two due to existing threats and current management scenarios (Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). These discrete populations represent less than 1 percent of the area historically occupied, and 4 percent of the current occupied range. Three regional populations, including the Nespelem population in Washington, the west-central Idaho population, and the south-central Idaho and northern Nevada population, were stable in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 9).
        The metapopulations of the subspecies have persisted for the last several decades with no discernable downward trend, and the available information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 8). The available information indicates that the three metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are relatively secure, although conclusive data regarding recent trends in these populations appears to be lacking (Bart 2000, p. 8; petition pp. 31-35). Given the level of threat to these populations and ongoing conservation measures (e.g., translocations, habitat protection and restoration), (Bart 2000, p. 9-10) concluded that, in the near term (i.e., less than 100 years), the large metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse would likely remain stable or increase in abundance and area of occupied range. In addition, one small population is likely to remain stable in west-central Idaho (Bart 2000, p. 10).
        According to Bart (2000, pp. 9-10), the three metapopulations will likely also remain stable in the long term (i.e., 100 years), although the Utah portion of one of the metapopulations may experience some decline as a result of predicted future urban expansion in the Salt Lake City and Ogden metropolitan area. Of the smaller populations, only the west-central Idaho population is likely to remain stable, while the long-term outlook for reintroduced populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is uncertain (Bart 2000, p. 10).
        Threats Analysis
        In our determinations of whether to list a species, subspecies, or any distinct vertebrate population segment of these taxa under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we must consider the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above factors, either singly or in combination.
        The information presented in the petition with regard to the five factors established by the Act and the information in our files as it relates to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is considered below.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range
        The petition (pp. 39-40) states that habitat destruction, primarily due to extensive agricultural development, is one of the main reasons for the decline of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's rangewide population, and that agriculture and other activities that result in habitat destruction (e.g., residential development) are continuing, or possibly increasing, within the subspecies' historic distribution. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are negatively impacted by loss of habitat and associated human disturbances, such as the introduction of pets, some of which (e.g., dogs) may prey upon or otherwise disturb local populations, and by potential increases in the abundance and distribution of certain natural predators, such as coyotes and ravens.
        The petition also states that habitat degradation, primarily due to excessive livestock grazing, contributed to past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and that grazing and other activities (e.g., chemical and mechanical treatments, increases in nonnative invasive vegetation) continue to threaten the subspecies (pp. 40-43 of the petition). Threats from these activities mainly result from modifications to existing vegetation communities that make the sites less suitable, or unsuitable, for use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

        We concur with the petitioners that human influences are primarily responsible for the destruction and degradation of suitable habitats, resulting in declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and occupied range. However, most large-scale habitat conversions within the subspecies' historic distribution took place during the early to mid-1900s (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3).

        Implementation of light or moderate grazing levels, or varied grazing systems, may maintain or improve forage conditions on range lands (Mattise et al. 1982, p. 131; Nielsen and Yde 1982, pp. 159-163), and do not necessarily adversely affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. The information provided in the petition and in our files does not further address actual grazing levels (e.g., livestock numbers, timing, duration) or grazing effects specific to the discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
        We concur with the petitioners that conversion and degradation of suitable habitats within the subspecies' historic distribution continues. However, these impacts are occurring at much reduced rates compared to historic levels (see above). The petition did not provide any information that further quantifies or qualifies these potential ongoing impacts, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations.
        Given the lack of information in the petition that further quantifies or qualifies habitat impacts, and the fact that the three metapopulations of the grouse are stable or increasing, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The petition states that excessive hunting likely contributed to past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and presents a discussion addressing whether contemporary hunting pressure may be additive or compensatory to natural mortality. The petition cautions that, under certain circumstances, excessive hunting pressure may result in population declines. The petition summarizes recent hunting seasons, bag limits, and potential adverse impacts from hunting in several U.S. States and in British Columbia, Canada. The petition also indicates that certain research activities (e.g., radio-marking) may make Columbian sharp-tailed grouse more susceptible to mortality factors (e.g., predation) (pp. 43-44 of the petition).
        We concur with the petitioners that excessive hunting pressure is partially responsible for past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and occupied range, and that, under certain circumstances, contemporary hunting pressure may be additive to natural mortality. We also concur that various research activities may increase the risk of mortality to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, current estimated harvest rates are not likely to adversely affect the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the States with hunting seasons (Bart 2000, pp. 11-12). In addition, large metapopulations are not likely to be significantly impacted by various future research activities (capture, translocation, radio marking, genetic sampling) (Bart 2000, p. 11).
        The petition did not provide any information that further quantifies or qualifies the potential ongoing impacts of hunting or research, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
        C. Disease or Predation

        The petition states that some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations may carry heavy ectoparasite loads that could limit already stressed populations (pp. 44-45 of the petition). The petition also presents a discussion of the impacts of West Nile virus infection on greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and indicates that this rapidly emerging disease may represent a significant threat to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, especially to the smaller, isolated populations of the subspecies. The petition indicates that human activities may have increased the vulnerability of some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations to predation.
        No documentation exists that indicates disease or predation have played a significant role in the population declines and range reduction of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We agree that West Nile virus could become a threat to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the future. However, there is currently no information available that addresses the potential occurrence, infection rates, or virulence of West Nile virus in the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, or its potential effects on extant populations of the subspecies. We also agree that episodes of disease and altered predation patterns may play a role in the dynamics of the smaller, isolated populations.
        The petition did not provide any information that quantifies or qualifies the potential impacts of disease or predation, or their specific effects, on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that disease or predation threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The petition asserts that we inappropriately relied on formal State conservation planning efforts in our previous 12-month finding that determined the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse did not warrant listing under the Act (65 FR 60391). The petition also provides summary assessments of formal State conservation planning efforts in Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, and identifies U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) management designations for the subspecies (pp. 45-52 of the petition).
        Our previous determination was not based on the identified formal State and local working-group planning efforts; we considered them to be rudimentary planning efforts at that time (65 FR 60391). In addition, we specifically did not address these preliminary planning efforts under factor D, because they are non-regulatory in nature. Bart (2000, p. 7) indicated that: (1) Implementation of these plans was uncertain; (2) the plans provided no legally binding commitments; and (3) the conservation measures prescribed by the plans did not have much impact on analyses addressing the viability of the various extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Other ongoing foreign, Federal, State, and local management measures contributing to conservation of the subspecies were identified in our previous status review. These management measures include habitat maintenance and enhancement (e.g., that provided through the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or through land acquisition and protection actions), reintroduction and augmentation programs, and State survey and monitoring initiatives. In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we based our previous 12-month determination on the combined weight of the five threat factors and conservation benefits realized through ongoing management measures (65 FR 60391). The additional information provided in the petition that addresses the preliminary nature of formal State and local planning efforts does not substantiate that this is a factor that threatens the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.

        We concluded above that State hunting regulations appear to be sufficient to control harvest levels of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (both legal and illegal) in States where they are hunted, and to avoid adverse impacts to the subspecies (see previous discussion under factor B).
        In addition, revegetation and reclamation standards under the CRP and Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act promote the improvement of habitat conditions for the subspecies' metapopulations. The petition (pp. 56-60) indicates that potential benefits provided by the CRP may be limited, especially considering that “emergency” haying and grazing are allowed on lands enrolled under the program. The new information referenced in the petition (Table 2, pp. 57-58) indicates that, on average, less than 10 percent of CRP acreage within the historic range of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be open to emergency grazing and haying on an annual basis. The petition also indicates that the CRP may expire in 2007, which may represent a significant threat to various Columbian sharp-tailed populations that have come to rely on these lands. The CRP has been authorized on a recurrent 10-year time frame since 1987, with subsequent “sign-ups” of eligible lands occurring after each reauthorization. While the available information does not conclusively demonstrate that the program will be continued in 2007 or beyond, it likewise does not indicate that it will be terminated or otherwise significantly altered under future reauthorizations. The available information does not address the actual extent of haying and grazing activities (e.g., livestock numbers, timing, duration) or potential effects to the subspecies under the haying and grazing provisions, and does not address other conservation implications of potential future changes to the CRP.
        Further, the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are stable or improving in status, and there are approximately 22,500 to 35,500 birds. Because the status is stable, it is likely that threat levels are low enough in the metapopulation areas, such that regulatory mechanisms are not necessary to prevent declines. We find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
        The petition presented discussions addressing potential adverse impacts to the extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other influences, including the use of insecticides, reduced genetic fitness, drought and climate change, prescribed fire and fire suppression, other human-related disturbances (e.g., fences, increased noise), dependence on artificial habitats (e.g., lands enrolled under the CRP), and utility lines and roads (pp. 44-52).
        We concur with the petitioners that some of the other threats identified in the petition (e.g., insecticide use, reduced genetic fitness, fire management, other human-related disturbances) may impact local populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, the three metapopulations and the larger regional populations have persisted in the presence of these ongoing factors for decades. Because metapopulations are more resilient to localized impacts, these factors, either singly or in combination, are not expected to significantly affect future trends in the overall status of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 10).
        Other possible future threats identified in the petition (e.g., climate change, extended drought) have the potential to impact the three metapopulations and the larger regional populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The petition provides speculation (p. 55 of the petition) that temperature increases in combination with altered precipitation could cause changes in species composition and habitat. While a petition does not have to provide conclusive evidence, we find that substantial evidence requires more than speculation. No additional information regarding how these potential threats may affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, now or in the future, is contained in our files.
        We find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that other natural or human-caused factors threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
        Significant Portion of the Range
        The petition states that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is absent from 92 to 95 percent of its historic distribution (p. 52 of the petition), and claims that this area represents a significant portion of the subspecies' range.

        We concur with the petitioners that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse currently occupies less than 10 percent of its estimated historic distribution (Bart 2000, p. 8), and that most of the subspecies' small, isolated populations may be extirpated within 10 to 20 years due to existing threats and current management scenarios (Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). However, range contractions by themselves do not relegate species to certain extinction or suggest that the species require protections under the Act. Nearly all species have experienced range contractions due to anthropogenic effects. While for many species even small range contractions are incompatible with recovery, reduction in a species' range or population numbers does not automatically suggest that the species is in peril, sometimes even when the reduction appears significant.

        Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population core areas, where 95 percent of the grouse have occurred for the last 50 years or more, have remained relatively constant, with recent slight increases (Bart 2000, pp. 8-10). Most broad-scale impacts to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (e.g., loss and degradation of suitable habitats, over-hunting) that led to past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution took place during the late 1800s through the mid-1900s (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). The petitioner concludes that lack of proactive management by State and Federal agencies will allow the species to fade into extinction (p. 61 of the petition); however, available information shows that hunting is either regulated or not authorized in all States with populations, and reintroduction actions are ongoing. The subspecies remains stable in three metapopulations, and no current data indicates declining trends. The petition does not provide substantial information suggesting that the portion of the range where the subspecies no longer occurs is significant to the long-term persistence of the subspecies.

        In addition, while in general we are concerned with the continued loss of range and the potential contribution small populations may play in a species' recovery, the petition does not present substantial information that the small, islolated populations that may be extirpated in a few decades constitute a significant portion of the range. We made this determination based on a combination of factors. First, the extent of habitat outside the three metapopulations is small relative to the overall range of the subspecies, roughly 4 percent of the subspecies' current occupied range. Second, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are genetically, behaviorally, or ecologically unique, or that they contribute individuals to other geographic areas through emigration. Finally, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that these habitats are important to the survival of the species because of any unique contribution to the species' natural history, e.g., for reasons such as feeding, migration, or wintering.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent information available in our files. The two main causes for historic declines of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, (1) loss and degradation of habitats and (2) over-hunting, occurred in the early 1900s. At present, these factors occur at much reduced levels, or not at all, within the areas currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. The subspecies' metapopulations have persisted for the last several decades with no discernable downward trend, and recent information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 9).
        After review of the best scientific and commercial information available, we conclude that substantial information has not been presented to indicate that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted.
        Although we are not commencing a new status review in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the subspecies' population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might affect the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

        We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with conservation of the subspecies. If you wish to provide information regarding the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available on request from the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren of the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 13, 2006.
          H. Dale Hall,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E6-19681 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 62
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150; FRL-8505-4]
        Disapproval of Plan of Nevada: Clean Air Mercury Rule

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Plan submitted by Nevada on November 15, 2006. The plan is intended to address the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005 and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the submitted Nevada State Plan does not meet certain CAMR requirements and, therefore, must be disapproved.
          CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury (Hg) from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans that ensure that annual in-state EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is proposing to disapprove, Nevada has chosen to meet CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. However, Nevada's plan does not meet the mandatory timing requirements for allowance allocations, and differs substantively from certain required provisions of EPA's model rule (including the provision requiring unrestricted allowance transfer and trading).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 28, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150, by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

          3. Mail: EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150, Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
          4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 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:

          If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Lily Wong, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. The telephone number is (415) 947-4114. Ms. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at wong.lily@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
          II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?
          III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?
          IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?
          V. Analysis of Nevada's CAMR State Plan Submittal
          VI. Implications of State Plan Disapproval
          VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
        EPA is proposing to disapprove Nevada's State Plan, submitted on November 15, 2006, because Nevada's submitted State Plan does not meet certain CAMR requirements necessary for participation in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Nevada's plan requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. However, the State Plan does not meet the mandatory allocation timing requirements under 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6)(ii)(C) and (D) and differs substantively from certain required provisions of EPA's model rule at 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH (including the requirement to provide for unrestricted allowance transfer and trading). Furthermore, as an allowance system that does not meet the above requirements, Nevada's State Plan fails to state that Hg allowances issued under the Nevada CAMR program will not qualify as Hg allowances under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program as required by 40 CFR 60.24(h)(7). Consequently, EPA is proposing to determine that the State Plan does not meet the applicable requirements of CAMR and to disapprove the plan on that basis.
        II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?
        CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, “Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule”). In this rule, acting pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States meet Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from large coal-fired electric generating units (i.e., EGUs, as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)). EPA further required all States to submit State Plans that include control measures that ensure that total, annual Hg emissions from new and existing EGUs do not exceed the applicable Statewide annual EGU Hg emissions budget. Under CAMR, States may implement these emissions limitations either by participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program or by adopting other effective and enforceable control measures.
        CAMR explains what must be included in State Plans and sets a deadline for submittal to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40 CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator will approve or disapprove the submitted State Plans. The purpose of this action is to propose disapproval of Nevada's CAMR State Plan.
        III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans?
        CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets implemented in two phases. The first phase starts in 2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase starts in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the budgets by either: (1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program; or (2) adopting other EGU control measures of the respective State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State annual EGU Hg emissions budget.
        Each State Plan must require EGUs to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the State has the legal authority to adopt the appropriate emission standards, compliance schedules, and other requirements.
        IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?
        Many States have chosen to meet the CAMR requirements by requiring new and existing EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program while many other States have chosen to control Statewide annual Hg emissions for new and existing EGUs through an alternative mechanism. Each State that chooses an alternative mechanism must include with its plan a demonstration that the State Plan will ensure that the State will meet its assigned State annual EGU Hg emission budget.
        A State submitting a State Plan that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the EPA model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH) or incorporate by reference the entire model rule. Alternatively, CAMR provides that a State requiring participation in the cap-and-trade program may adopt regulations, or an incorporation by reference, that make only limited changes to the model rule and must otherwise be substantively identical to the model rule. A State Plan may change the model rule only by altering the allowance allocation provisions to provide for a State-specific methodology for allocating Hg allowances. A State's alternative allowance allocation provisions must meet certain mandatory allocation timing requirements and must ensure that total allocations for each calendar year will not exceed the State's annual EGU Hg budget for that year.
        A State may submit a State Plan that establishes an allowance system that does not meet the above-described requirements for participation in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program and that does not require such participation, and EPA will review the State Plan on a case-by-case basis to determine if the plan meets CAMR requirements applicable to plans not involving such participation. However, such State Plans must state that Hg allowances issued under such an allowance system will not qualify as Hg allowances under the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program.
        V. Analysis of Nevada's CAMR State Plan Submittal

        The Nevada State Plan requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. The State Plan incorporates by reference some provisions of the EPA model Hg trading rule (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH), but replaces other provisions of the model rule. In particular, the State has chosen to replace model rule provisions addressing retired units, the standard requirements for sources subject to the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program, the allocation of allowances, and the recordation of allowance allocations. Nevada's rule also added certain definitions to those in the model rule and adopted allowance allocation provisions establishing an alternate allowance allocation methodology.

        Under CAMR, States may establish a different Hg allowance allocation methodology and still participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program if certain mandatory requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of allocations to EGUs to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period and if the State Plan is otherwise substantively identical to the model rule. In adopting alternative Hg allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:
        1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned;
        2. The frequency of allocations (e.g., whether allocations for each year will be determined in advance by an even longer period than under the mandatory allowance allocation timing requirements);
        3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and

        4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. See 70 FR 28627.

        Nevada's alternative allowance allocation methodology effectively distributes Hg allowances based upon a unit's actual emissions. However, while Nevada's State Plan requires sources to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program and so does not state that Nevada-issued allowances will not qualify as Hg allowances under the EPA-administered program, Nevada's method for the allocation of allowances does not comply with the mandatory timing requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6)(ii)(C) and (D). Under 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6)(ii)(C) and (D), allowances for existing units must be allocated generally three years before, and allowances for new units must be allocated by October 31 of, the first control period for which the allowances may be used for compliance. Nevada's State Plan also differs substantively from certain other provisions of EPA's model rule that are required for participation in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. Specifically, Nevada's State Plan creates restrictions on allowance transfer and trading, fails to state that an allowance does not constitute a property right, substitutes the Director of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for the Administrator, lacks deadlines for recordation of allowance allocations, misstates the requirements for compliance with the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions, allows for Director's discretion to create an exception to the requirement that sources maintain records on-site, and allows for Director's discretion in specifying the content of CAMR permit applications and permits. These inconsistencies of Nevada's rule with the requirements of CAMR are discussed in detail in the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled EPA Proposed Analysis of Nevada Clean Air Mercury Rule State Plan, which is included in the docket for this notice.
        For these reasons, as discussed in detail in the TSD, Nevada's rule is not approvable under 40 CFR 60.24(h)(6) and (7).1

            1 EPA is acting on the final Nevada CAMR State Plan submitted on November 15, 2006. EPA recognizes that Nevada has since proposed revisions that would address some, but not all, of the approvability issues identified above. EPA is not addressing in this notice Nevada's proposed revisions as they have not yet been adopted or submitted. However, EPA notes that these proposed revisions do not address certain approvability issues, including those allocation timing and restrictions on allowance transfer and trading.

        VI. Implications of State Plan Disapproval
        Under 40 CFR 60.27(b), the Administrator must approve or disapprove timely submitted State Plans within four months of the deadline for their submission to the Administrator, i.e., November 17, 2006 in the case of CAMR State Plans. Moreover, under 40 CFR 60.27(c), the Administrator must propose a Federal Plan for States that did not submit State Plans by the submission deadline or whose timely submitted State Plans the Administrator disapproves. The Administrator must finalize a Federal Plan for such States under 40 CFR 60.27(d) within six months of the deadline for their submission to the Administrator, unless in the meantime the State submits a State Plan that the Administrator determines to be approvable. EPA's review of Nevada's State Plan continued beyond the deadline in 40 CFR 60.27(b) because of the complexity of Nevada's rule and because EPA conducted an extended dialogue with Nevada in order to understand the State's concerns and to try to resolve the issues raised by Nevada's State Plan.
        In a separate action, EPA has proposed a Federal Plan and intends to issue a final Federal Plan in the near future. Any final Federal Plan will generally apply in those States that did not submit a State Plan by November 17, 2006, whose State Plans submitted by November 17, 2006 have been disapproved by EPA, or whose State Plans submitted after November 17, 2006 have not been approved. A final determination of the categories of States to which the Federal Plan will apply will be made in the notice finalizing a Federal Plan. If EPA finalizes the disapproval of Nevada's CAMR State Plan and finalizes the Federal Plan as described above, Nevada EGUs will be subject to the Federal Plan. It is EPA's intention to work quickly to review any revision of a disapproved State Plan, so that an approvable State Plan can be approved and take the place of the Federal Plan.
        VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to disapprove State law as not meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State law and would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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).
        This proposal also does not have Tribal implications because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

        This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a State rule as failing to implement a Federal standard. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. It also does not concern an environmental health or safety risk the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
        Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. EPA guidance 2

           states that EPA is to assess whether minority or low-income populations face risk or a rate of exposure to hazards that is significant and that “appreciably exceed[s] or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the appropriate comparison group.” (EPA, 1998) Because this rule merely proposes to disapprove a state rule as failing to implement the Federal standard established by CAMR, EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations. However, EPA has already considered the impact of CAMR, including this Federal standard, on minority and low-income populations. In the context of EPA's CAMR published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2005, in accordance with E.O. 12898, the Agency has considered whether CAMR may have disproportionate negative impacts on minority or low income populations and determined that it does not.

            2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, DC, April, 1998.

        In reviewing State Plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA generally and CAMR specifically. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State Plan for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State Plan submission, to use VCS in place of a State Plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping, Mercury.

          Dated: December 3, 2007.
          Wayne Nastri,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. E7-24167 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P