        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 051500D ]
        RIN 0648-AM72
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 66 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) to remove the allocation of squid to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. The Council has recommended this amendment to prevent the incidental catch of squid in the pollock CDQ fisheries from preventing the CDQ groups from fully harvesting the pollock CDQ allocation required under the American Fisheries Act (AFA).

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 66 must be submitted by July 31, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel. Hand delivery or courier delivery of comments may be sent to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Copies of Amendment 66 to the FMP and of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this action are available from the Council, 605 West 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252, telephone 907-271-2809; from NMFS at the above address; or by calling the Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sally Bibb, 907-586-7389, sally.bibb@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notification in the Federal Register that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. Therefore, NMFS solicits comments on the approval, disapproval, or partial approval of this amendment.
        The Council adopted Amendment 66 at its June 1999 meeting. If approved by NMFS, this amendment would remove the allocation of 7.5 percent of the squid total allowable catch (TAC) to the CDQ Program. Currently, each CDQ group must manage its CDQ fisheries to ensure that its squid CDQ allocation is not exceeded. The pollock fishery takes squid as incidental catch. The potential exists that if a CDQ group were to catch its full squid allocation, it would be precluded from continuing to fish for pollock. This potential constraint on the pollock CDQ fisheries existed when the pollock CDQ allocation was 7.5 percent of the pollock TAC. The potential is more likely now that the pollock CDQ allocation has been increased to 10 percent of the TAC under the AFA. In passing the AFA, Congress manifested its intent that CDQ groups be able to harvest their full pollock allocations. Therefore, the Council is recommending removal of squid as a CDQ species.

        NMFS solicits public comments on the amendment through July 31, 2000. A proposed rule that would implement the amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following NMFS's evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision; comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period specified in this notice of availability; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Dated: May 22, 2000.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-13370 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350; FRL-9815-2]

        Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Utah that is intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (“Act” or “CAA”) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This SIP submission addresses the requirement that Utah's SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit air emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through interstate transport. Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Utah SIP submission that addresses the CAA requirement prohibiting emissions from Utah sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state or interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. Under a recent court decision, this disapproval does not trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address these interstate transport requirements.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: clark.adam@epa.gov.
          • Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
          • Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
          • Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, clark.adam@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Definitions
        For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
        (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
        (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate Rule
        (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
        (iv) The words EPA, we,
          us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
        (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
        (vi) The initials UDEQ mean or refer to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
        (vii) The words Utah and State mean the State of Utah.
        Table of Contents

          I. General Information
          II. Background

            A. 2006 PM
            2.5
            NAAQS and Interstate Transport

            B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM
            2.5
            NAAQS in the Eastern Portion of the United States

            C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To Address Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM
            2.5
            NAAQS

          III. Utah's Submittal
          IV. EPA's Evaluation
          V. Proposed Action
          VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. General Information
        What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://
          www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. Background
        A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

        Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants. In this action for the state of Utah, EPA is addressing the first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—the two elements contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1
           The first element requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” of the NAAQS in another state. The second element requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants that will “interfere with maintenance” of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.

            1 This proposed action does not address the two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state. We will act on these elements in a separate rulemaking.

        B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Eastern Portion of the United States
        EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for many states in the eastern portion of the country in three regulatory actions.2

           Most recently, EPA published the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR” or “Transport Rule”) to address the two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Eastern United States with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR was intended to replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded.3

          See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. On March 29, 2013, the United States and other parties asked the Supreme Court to review the EME Homer City decision. In the meantime, and unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified, EPA intends to act in accordance with the opinion in EME Homer City.

            2 See NOx SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

            3 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

        Certain aspects of the EME Homer City opinion are potentially relevant to this proposed disapproval. First, the opinion concludes that a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission cannot be considered a “required” SIP submission until EPA has defined a state's obligations pursuant to that section. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 32 (“A SIP logically cannot be deemed to lack a `required submission' or deemed to be deficient for failure to meet the good neighbor obligation before EPA quantifies the good neighbor obligation.”) EPA historically has interpreted section 110(a)(1) of the CAA as establishing the required submittal date for SIPs addressing all of the “interstate transport” requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D), including the provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. However, at this time in light of the EME Homer City opinion, EPA is not treating the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Utah as a required SIP submission. Second, the EME Homer City opinion provides that EPA does not have authority to promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has identified emissions in a state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state and given the state an opportunity to submit a SIP to address those emissions. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28. Therefore, unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified, any final disapproval would not obligate Utah to take any action or make a new SIP submission. Nor would it trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address these interstate transport requirements.

        C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To Address Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

        On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that provides recommendations to states for making SIP submissions to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 standards (“2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance” or “Guidance”).4

           With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance essentially reiterated the recommendations for western states made by EPA in previous guidance addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.5
           The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling.6
           With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must address this independent and distinct requirement of the statute and provide technical information appropriate to support the state's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling.

            4 See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.

            5 See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.

            6 The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3.

        In assessing interstate transport of emissions from Utah, EPA continues to consider relevant the types of information that were suggested in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be probative to consider whether sources in the state may contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. Modeling can be relied on when acceptable modeling technical analyses are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport in a specific situation.
        III. Utah's Submittal

        On September 21, 2010, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) made a submission certifying that Utah's SIP is adequate to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all the “infrastructure” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), including the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).7

           UDEQ points to the CSAPR proposal as evidence that the State does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 NAAQS violations in down-wind states. Specifically, the submission states;

            7 UDEQ's submission, dated September 21, 2010 is included in the docket for this action.

          On August 2, 2010, EPA proposed a new rule to replace the CAIR as a means to address interstate transport (see FR 75 No. 147, pp 45210). Again, there are certain western states that were found not to contribute in a significant way to any NAAQS violation, for either PM2.5 or ozone, in the down-wind states. Utah is among those states. EPA's assessment regarding these western states is undoubtedly based on a regional scale technical analysis, and Utah will point to that analysis in order to conclude that there are no current or future emissions from within its boundaries that either cause or contribute in a significant way to NAAQS violations in any of the down-wind states.

        IV. EPA's Evaluation
        If a state chooses to submit a SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for a particular NAAQS, and the state believes that the existing SIP adequately meets those requirements, then the state should submit a technical demonstration, relying on information relevant to the particular NAAQS, in support of the state's conclusion. EPA may supplement the state's demonstration with information and analyses that EPA determines are relevant and consistent with EPA's interpretation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

        In this case, Utah's submittal attempted to rely on statements in the CSAPR proposal to show that the state's current SIP was adequate for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal stated that in CSAPR, “certain western states . . .  were found not to contribute in a significant way to any NAAQS violation, for either PM2.5 or ozone, in the down-wind states. Utah is among those states.” This statement does not accurately characterize the analysis done during the development of CSAPR. EPA decided to conduct modeling to analyze interstate transport of emissions for only the eastern portion of the country. That decision, however, in no way constituted a determination about significant contribution or interference with maintenance for western states such as Utah that were outside the modeling domain. On the contrary, in the final CSAPR rule, EPA explained that “EPA is making no specific finding for states that are not fully contained within the eastern 12 km modeling domain.” 8

           (76 FR 48220). As a result, the State's submittal is inadequate to demonstrate that the Utah SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal does not correctly characterize the conclusions made during the CSAPR rulemaking process. In addition, it does not include any technical analysis or any demonstration that the existing SIP is adequate to prohibit emissions from Utah from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in another state. In particular, the Logan, Utah-Idaho multistate nonattainment area, which consists of one airshed in the Cache Valley, is located partially in Utah and partially in Idaho. Utah's submission provided no relevant information regarding the potential for interstate transport of emissions from sources in the Utah portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area to the Idaho portion of the nonattainment area. In addition, considering the close proximity and shared topography between the Utah portion of Cache Valley and the Franklin, Idaho portion, as well as other factors suggested in the 2009 Guidance (see section III.C), EPA cannot determine based on the weight of evidence that emissions from Utah do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state.

            8 Utah was not fully contained within the CSAPR 12km modeling domain. See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document (June 2011), at 5-6.

        As neither EPA's nor Utah's analysis has led to a factual finding that significant contribution does not exist, there is no basis for EPA to conclude that the existing SIP is adequate to satisfy the significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For these reasons, the SIP does not meet the requirements for approval and EPA thus proposes to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submittal.

        This disapproval, however, neither constitutes a determination that Utah is significantly contributing to nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance in another state, nor quantifies Utah's obligations pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Further, unless the D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) is reversed or otherwise modified,9

           the disapproval proposed herein by itself would not require Utah to take any additional action related to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time and would not obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP to address those requirements. As explained above, in EME Homer City, the D.C. Circuit concluded that a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP cannot be “required” until sometime after EPA quantifies the state's obligations pursuant to that section, and that EPA therefore cannot promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until after EPA has both quantified the state's obligation and given the state an initial opportunity to implement the obligations through a SIP. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28, 30-31. EPA has not yet determined whether Utah has any additional obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or quantified any such obligations. Therefore, pursuant to the EME Homer City decision, this 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Utah was not a required SIP submission and thus Utah has no obligation at this time to resubmit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP or take any other action related to the requirements of this section with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, unless the EME Homer City opinion is reversed or modified, final action on the disapproval proposed herein would also not trigger any FIP obligation under CAA section 110(c), because pursuant to EME Homer City, at this time EPA lacks authority to promulgate a FIP to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. See id. at 28-37.

            9 On March 29, 2013 the United States and other parties filed petitions for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012).

        V. Proposed Action

        EPA is proposing to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Utah's September 21, 2010 submission. We propose to disapprove this portion of the submission because it fails to demonstrate that the Utah SIP is adequate for the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained in detail above, unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or modified, this disapproval will not trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address these interstate transport requirements, nor will it require Utah to submit a revised interstate transport SIP to meet the requirements.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely disapproves some state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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 rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: May 8, 2013.
          Howard M. Cantor,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

      [FR Doc. 2013-11974 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 021223329-2329-01; I.D. 121302A]
        RIN 0648-AQ26
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed 2003 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2003 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery, including total allowable landings (TAL), state-by-state commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits and possession limits for Atlantic bluefish off the East Coast of the United States.  The intent of the specifications is to conserve and manage the bluefish resource and provide for sustainable fisheries.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on January 21, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) are available from:   Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE  19904-6790.  The EA, IRFA, and EFHA are accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov.

          Comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to:  Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Please mark the envelope, “Comments—2003 Bluefish Specifications.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul Perra, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9153, e-mail at Paul.Perra@noaa.gov, fax at (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations implementing the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J.  Regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.160.  The FMP requires that the Council recommend, on an annual basis, a TAL, which is comprised of a commercial quota and a recreational harvest limit.
        The FMP also requires that:  (1) The TAL for any given year be set based on the fishing mortality rate (F) resulting from the stock rebuilding schedule contained in the FMP, or the estimated F in the most recent fishing year, whichever is lower; and (2) a total of 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota, with the remaining 83 percent allocated as a recreational harvest limit, with the stipulation that, if 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed TAL.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations.  NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to assure they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not.  NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register.  After considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.
        Proposed 2003 Specifications
        Proposed TAL
        On August 9, 2002, the Council adopted specifications for the 2003 Atlantic bluefish fishery.  NMFS has reviewed the Council's recommendation and has found it complies with the FMP objectives.  Therefore, NMFS is proposing to implement the Council's recommended specifications.
        For the 2003 fishery, the stock rebuilding program in the FMP would restrict F to 0.41.  However, the 2001 fishery (the most recent fishing year for which F can be calculated) produced an F of only 0.246.  So, in accordance with the FMP, the TAL proposed for 2003 was set to achieve F=0.246.  The resulting TAC recommended by the Council and proposed by NMFS is 39.5 million lb (17.9 million kg).  The TAL is calculated by deducting discards, estimated at 2.2 million lb (0.99 million kg) for 2003, from the TAC.  Therefore, the proposed TAL for 2003 is 37.293 million lb (16.916 million kg).
        Proposed Commercial Quota and Recreational Harvest Limit
        If the TAL for the 2003 fishery were allocated based on the percentages specified in the FMP, the commercial quota would be 6.339 million lb (2.875 million kg), with a recreational harvest limit of 30.953 million lb (10.500 million kg).  However, recreational landings from the last several years were much lower than the recreational allocation for 2003, ranging between 8.30 and 15.5 million lb (3.74 and 7.05 million kg).  Since the recreational fishery is not projected to land its 30.953 million-lb (12.153 million-kg) harvest limit in 2003, this allows the specification of a commercial quota of up to 10.5 million lb (4.76 million kg).  NMFS proposes to transfer 4.161 million lb (1.887 million kg) from the initial 2003 recreational allocation of 30.953 million lb (12.153 million kg), resulting in 26.793 million lb (12.153 million kg) for the 2003 recommended recreational harvest limit and a proposed commercial quota of 10.5 million lb (4.744 million kg).  The proposed 2003 commercial quota would be the same amount as was allocated in 2002 and implemented by NMFS and the states under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish.  A recreational possession limit of 15 fish/person (same as in 2002) is proposed, and also, 141,900-lb (64,365-kg) research set-aside (RSA) is proposed.  Some or all of the RSA amount will be allocated if research proposals to utilize it are approved for award.  A Request for Proposals was published to solicit proposals for 2003, based on research priorities identified by the Council (67 FR 13602, March 25, 2002).  The deadline for submission was May 13, 2002.  One  research project that would utilize bluefish RSA has been conditionally approved by NMFS, and is under final review by the NOAA Grants Office.   The Council and NMFS have recommended an RSA allocation of 141,900 lb (64,365 kg), for that project.

        If all of the bluefish RSA is allocated, the commercial quota would be 10.460 million lb (4.745 million kg) and the recreational harvest limit would be 26.691 million lb (12.107 million kg).  The RSA, the commercial quota, and the recreational harvest limit will be adjusted in the final rule establishing the annual specifications for the bluefish fishery, if necessary, to reflect RSA allocations to projects forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award.  If the awards are not made for any reason, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register to restore the unused set-aside amount to the annual commercial and recreational allocations.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        Proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2003 commercial quotas are shown in the table below, based on the  percentages specified in the FMP less the proposed RSA allocation.

            State
            % of quota
            2003 Commercial Quota (lb)
            2003 Commercial Quota (kg)
            2003 Commercial Quota (lb)
            With  Research Set-Aside
            2003 Commercial Quota (kg)
            With  Research Set-Aside

            ME
            0.6685
            70,193
            31,839
            6,992
            31,718

            NH
            0.4145
            43,523
            19,741
            43,357
            19,667

            MA
            6.7167
            705,254
            319,898
            702,570
            318,684

            RI
            6.8081
            714,851
            324,251
            712,131
            323,021

            CT
            1.2663
            132,962
            60,310
            132,456
            60,082

            NY
            10.3851
            1,090,436
            494,613
            1,086,286
            492,736

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,555,701
            705,654
            1,549,782
            702,977

            DE
            1.8782
            197,211
            89,453
            196,461
            89,114

            MD
            3.0018
            315,189
            142,967
            313,990
            142,425

            VA
            11.8795
            1,247,348
            565,787
            1,242,601
            563,640

            NC
            32.0608
            3,366,384
            1,526,966
            3,353,575
            1,521,172

            SC
            0.0352
            3,696
            1,676
            3,682
            1,670

            GA
            0.0095
            998
            452
            994
            451

            FL
            10.0597
            1,056,269
            479,115
            1,052,249
            477,297

            Total
            100.0000
            10,500,000
            4,762,720
            10,460,058
            4,744,652

        Classification

        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.  The Council prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for the action are provided in the preamble for the proposed rule, and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble, and in the IRFA.  A summary of the IRFA follows.
        An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as being any vessel that reported having landed one or more pounds of bluefish to NMFS-permitted dealers during calendar year 2001.  All vessels are considered to be small entities.  Of the active vessels in 2001, 846 landed bluefish from Maine to North Carolina.  The dealer data do not cover vessel activity in the South Atlantic.  State trip ticket report data indicate that 1,092 vessels landed bluefish in North Carolina.  Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia represented less than 1/10 of 1 percent of total landings.  Therefore, it was assumed that no vessels landed bluefish from those states.  In addition, 214 vessels landed bluefish to dealers on Florida's east coast in 2001.  In recent years, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels caught bluefish.
        The Council analyzed three TAL alternatives.  The preferred alternative examined the impacts on the industry that would result from a TAL of 37.293 million lb (16.916 million kg), allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors (10.460 million lb (4.74 million kg) commercial; 26.691 million lb (12.107 million kg) recreational), and an RSA of 141,900 million lb (64,356 kg).  Alternative 2 considered a TAL of 37.293 million lb (16.916 million kg), allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors (6.315 million lb (2.864 million kg) commercial; 30.835 million lb (13.986 million kg, recreational), and an RSA of 141,900 lb (64,365 kg).  Alternative 3, provides for a lower commercial quota than Alternative 1, considers a TAL of 37.293 million lb (16.916 million kg) 9.546 million lb (4.329 million kg) commercial; 27.604 million lb (12.521 million kg) recreational), and an RSA of 141,900 lb (64,365 Kg).
        On a coastwide basis, the preferred alternative would allow for less than a 1-percent decrease in total allowable commercial landings for bluefish in 2003 versus the 2002 commercial quota, due to the amount specified for the RSA.  The 2003 recreational harvest limit would be 63 percent higher than the estimated recreational landings in 2002.  Under this alternative, no vessels would realize significant revenue reductions.  According to dealer data, 650 federally permitted commercial vessels would be expected to incur revenue losses of 5 percent or less, and 193 commercial vessels would incur revenue gains.  The affected entities would be mostly smaller vessels that land bluefish in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina.  The revenue increase is primarily due to the fact that the New York quota was adjusted downward in 2002 due to overages in 2001.  Thus, that state shows a positive proportional change in quota from 2002 to 2003 (see section 5.3 of the RIR/IRFA).  In addition, economic analysis of South Atlantic Trip Ticket Report data indicated that, on average, reduction in revenues due to the change in quota levels from 2002 to 2003 are expected to have small reductions in revenue for fishermen that land bluefish in North Carolina (1.44 percent) and minimal for fishermen that land bluefish in Florida (0.07 percent).
        Alternative 2 would result in a 40-percent decrease in the total allowable commercial landings for bluefish in 2003 versus 2002.  The 2003 recreational harvest limit would be 88 percent higher than the estimated recreational landings in 2002.  Under this scenario, according to Northeast dealer data, a total of 103 vessels would incur revenue losses from 5 to 39 percent, and 740 vessels would incur revenue losses of less than 5 percent of their total ex-vessel revenue.  Also, evaluation of South Atlantic Trip Ticket Reports indicate an average of 6.1 and 0.03-percent reductions in revenue for fishermen that land bluefish in North Carolina and Florida, respectively.
        Alternative 3 would result in a 9-percent decrease in the total allowable commercial landings for bluefish in 2003 versus 2002.  The 2003 recreational harvest limit would be 69 percent higher than the estimated recreational landings in 2002.  Under this scenario, based on Northeast dealer data, a total of 28 vessels would incur revenue losses from 5 to 10 percent, 626 commercial vessels would incur revenue losses of less than 5 percent of their total ex-vessel revenue, and 189 vessels would incur an increase in revenue.  The revenue increase is primarily due to the fact that the New York quota was adjusted downward in 2002 due to overages in 2001.  Thus, that state shows a positive proportional change in quota from 2002 to 2003 (see section 5.3 of the RIR/IRFA).   Also, evaluation of South Atlantic Trip Ticket Reports indicate reduction in revenues of 1.44 and 0.07-percent for fishermen that land bluefish in North Carolina and Florida, respectively.

        The Council further analyzed the impacts on revenues of the proposed RSA amount for all three alternatives.  The social and economic impacts of this proposed RSA are minimal.  Assuming the full RSA is allocated for bluefish, the set-aside amount could be worth as much as $45,480 dockside, based on a 2001 price of $0.32 per pound.  Assuming an equal reduction among all 834 active dealer reported vessels, this could mean a reduction of about $55 per individual vessel.  Changes in the recreational harvest limit would be insignificant (less than 1 percent decrease), if 2 percent of the TAL is used for research.  It is unlikely that there would be negative impacts.  A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:  December 27, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-179 Filed 1-3-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU12

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Delist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and Proposed Delisting of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 12-month petition finding and proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          We the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce a 12-month finding on a petition to delist the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) (Zapus hudsonius preblei) under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the petitioned action is warranted and propose to delist or remove Preble's from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose this action based on a review of all available data, which indicate that Preble's is not a discrete taxonomic entity, does not meet the definition of a subspecies, and was listed in error. Before this proposed action is finalized, the Service will conduct a status review and evaluate threats to the combined Z. h. campestris entity in all or a significant portion of its range. We will also analyze whether the Preble's portion of Z. h. campestris qualifies as a Distinct Population Segment in need of protection. We seek comments from the public regarding this proposal.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments on this notice and proposed rule received until the close of business on May 3, 2005. Requests for public hearings must be received by us on or before March 21, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice and proposal by one of several methods:
          1. You may submit written comments to Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, Ecological Services, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
          2. You may hand-deliver comments to our Colorado Field Office at the above address or send via facsimile (fax: (303) 275-2371).
          3. You may send comments via electronic mail (e-mail) to FW6_PMJM@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this 12-month finding and proposed rule, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above address.
          To request a public hearing, submit a request in writing to the Colorado Field Office at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, at the above address or telephone 303-275-2370.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Preble's was listed as threatened on May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517). At the time of listing, the primary threat to Preble's was habitat loss and degradation caused by agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial development. On December 23, 2003, we received two petitions, from Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development and the State of Wyoming's Office of the Governor, to remove Preble's from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Act. Both petitions maintain Preble's should be delisted based on “data error” (i.e., subsequent investigations show that the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error) and “taxonomic revision” (i.e., Preble's is not a valid subspecies). As explained in our 1996 Petition Management Guidance (Service 1996), subsequent petitions are treated separately only when they are greater in scope than, or broaden the area of review of, the first petition. In this case, as both petitions were almost identical, the State of Wyoming's petition was treated as a comment on the first petition received.
        On March 31, 2004, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register that the petition presented substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted (69 FR 16944). Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that within 12 months after receiving a petition to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings—(a) The petitioned action is not warranted; (b) the petitioned action is warranted; or (c) the petitioned action is warranted but precluded by pending proposals. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have now completed a review of the best available scientific and commercial information on the species and have reached a determination that the petitioned action is warranted. When the proposed action is warranted, it should be accompanied by, or promptly followed by, a proposed rule to implement the warranted action. In this case, we have combined the 12-month finding and the proposed delisting rule into a single document.
        General Species Information
        Meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) are small rodents with long tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. The tail is bicolored, lightly-furred, and typically twice as long as the body. Meadow jumping mice have a distinct, dark, broad stripe on their backs that runs from head to tail and is bordered on either side by gray to orange-brown fur. The underside fur is white and very fine in texture. Total length of an adult meadow jumping mouse is approximately 180 to 250 millimeters (mm) (7 to 10 inches (in)), with the tail comprising 108 to 155 mm (4 to 6 in) of that length (Krutzsch 1954, Fitzgerald et al. 1994).

        Across its range, meadow jumping mice typically occur in moist habitats, including low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or both, in open wet meadows and riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover (Krutzsch 1954, Quimby 1951, Armstrong 1972). Meadow jumping mice prefer lowlands with medium to high moisture over drier uplands. Fitzgerald et al. (1994) described meadow jumping mice as most common in wooded areas. Because adequate herbaceous or grassy ground cover is essential for the species, meadow jumping mice in the northern Great Plains are restricted primarily to riparian habitats (Jones et al. 1983).

        Meadow jumping mice are primarily nocturnal or crepuscular, but also may be active during the day, when they have been seen moving around or sitting under a shrub (Shenk 1998). These mice are nomadic, and may roam up to 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mile (mi)) in search of moist habitat. Meadow jumping mice usually move in hops of about 3 to 15 centimeters (cm) (1 to 6 in), but are capable of taking a few long jumps of 60 to 90 cm (2 to 3 feet). Meadow jumping mice, including Preble's, are true hibernators. Preble's usually enter hibernation in September or October and emerge the following May, after a potential hibernation period of 7 or 8 months. Adult Preble's reach weights that enable them to enter hibernation as early as the third week in August, whereas young of the year typically enter hibernation in September and October (Meaney et al. 2003).

        Additional species information is available in the May 13, 1998, final rule to list the Preble's as a threatened species (63 FR 26517) and the June 23, 2003, final rule to designate critical habitat for the Preble's (68 FR 37275).

        Taxonomy
        The Preble's is a member of the family Dipodidae (jumping mice) (Holden 1992), which contains four extant genera. Two of these, Zapus and Napaeozapus, are found in North America (Hall 1981, Wilson and Ruff 1999).

        In his 1899 study of North American jumping mice, Edward A. Preble concluded there were 10 species in the Zapus genus. According to Preble, meadow jumping mice (Z. hudsonius) included five subspecies. Preble classified all specimens of meadow jumping mice from the States of North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri as Z. h. campestris.

        Krutzsch (1954) revised the taxonomy of the genus after studying morphological characteristics of 3,600 specimens of Zapus. This revision recognized only 3 distinct species of jumping mice; the meadow jumping mouse, the western jumping mouse (Z. princeps), and the Pacific jumping mouse (Z. trinotatus), comprised of 11, 11, and 4 subspecies, respectively. Krutzsch relegated the majority of species previously recognized by Preble (1899) to subspecific status. Krutzsch based his reduction in the number of distinct species on Mayr's (1942) species concept, which defined species as actual or potential interbreeding individuals or populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Mayr described a subspecies as a geographically localized subdivision of the species, which differs genetically and taxonomically (as illustrated by significant morphological characteristics) from other subdivisions of the species.
        Krutzsch retained the name Z. h. campestris, but restricted its use to specimens from the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of northeastern Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, and adjacent southeastern Montana. Individuals from North Dakota, and northwestern, central, and eastern South Dakota were classified as the subspecies Z. h. intermedius. Krutzsch described and named Z. h. preblei (Preble's) as separate from Z. h. campestris (Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse) based on 11 specimens (4 adult and 7 non-adult). Krutzsch stated that although “the specimens of Z. h. preblei are few, the differences between this and neighboring named kinds is considerable.” Krutzsch also commented on the presence of physical habitat barriers and lack of known intergradation between Preble's, known only from eastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, and other identified subspecies of the meadow jumping mouse ranging to the east and north. Among recognized subspecies, Krutzsch found that Preble's most closely resembled the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse from northeastern Wyoming, but summarized differences in coloration and skull characteristics. Preble's was recognized as one of twelve subspecies of meadow jumping mouse by Hafner et al. (1981).
        Jones (1981) examined the morphology of 9,900 Zapus specimens from across North America. Jones concluded that the Pacific jumping mouse was not a valid taxon and suggested reducing the number of species in the genus to two (the western jumping mouse and the meadow jumping mouse). At the subspecific level, Jones concluded that there was “no evidence of any population of Zapus hudsonius being sufficiently isolated or distinct to warrant subspecific status” and “No named subspecies is geographically restricted by a barrier, with the possible exception of Z. h. preblei.” Jones made the statements above based on the subspecies concept proposed by Whitaker (1970) which said—(1) Subspecies must be divided by primary isolating mechanisms that stop or significantly reduce gene flow; (2) in the absence of primary isolating mechanisms, subspecies would still be capable of interbreeding; and (3) the existence of primary isolating mechanisms can be inferred from the genetic distinctness of subspecies, as evidenced by unique characteristics. The conclusions reached by Jones have not been incorporated into the formal taxonomy of the genus. These conclusions were never published in a peer-reviewed journal; therefore, the scientific community never formally assessed the validity of this work.
        In a report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Riggs et al. (1997) analyzed mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) from tissue samples of meadow jumping mice and western jumping mice from Colorado and Wyoming and concluded that Preble's mice form a homogenous group recognizably distinct from nearby populations of meadow jumping mice and adjacent species of the genus. Hafner (1997) reviewed the Riggs study, inspected Riggs' original sequence data, and agreed that Preble's form a relatively homogenous group compared to neighboring subspecies. Ramey et al. (2004) reviewed the Riggs study, and criticized the methodology for not rigorously testing whether Preble's formed a monophyletic group (i.e., a grouping of evolutionary lineages that includes a common ancestor and all descendent lineages) and for not providing statistical tests to support their conclusions.
        Ramey et al. (2004) (a revision of Ramey et al. 2003 considered in the 90-day finding) examined four lines of evidence to test the taxonomic validity of the Preble's as described by Krutzsch (1954). First, they performed a phylogenetic and population genetic analysis of mtDNA sequence data, primarily from museum specimens of four subspecies of meadow jumping mouse, including Preble's (58 specimens), the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (33 specimens), Zapus hudsonius luteus (32 specimens), and Z. h. pallidus (35 specimens). Ramey et al. used Z. princeps princeps (7 specimens), Z. p. idahoensis (3 specimens), and Z. p. utahensis (7 specimens) as the outgroup for the phylogenetic analysis. An outgroup is an organism from a distantly related group that shares a common ancestor with the group in question. Using an analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), Ramey et al. examined genetic variation in a hierarchical fashion within and between Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. This comparison revealed most of the genetic variation was within subspecies (64 percent) rather than among these subspecies (37 percent). Additionally, they found that all 4 identified Preble's mtDNA haplotypes were included within the 16 identified Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse mtDNA haplotypes. However, Ramey et al. also documented a high level of mtDNA variation (nucleotide diversity) in Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse compared to Preble's, “making these subspecies seem more diverged than the shared mtDNA haplotypes indicate.”
        Ramey et al. (2004) believed these findings are consistent with a founder effect. A founder effect is the establishment of a new population by a few original founders that carry only a small fraction of the total genetic variation of the parental population. A population may be descended from a small number of ancestral individuals for two reasons—(1) A small number of individuals may colonize a place previously uninhabited by their species; or (2) an established population may fluctuate in size such that a population passes through a “bottleneck” in which only a few individuals survive, and later expands again under more favorable conditions. Ramey et al. speculated that there were population “bottlenecks” during southward colonization into what is now Preble's range. Based on their results and analysis, the authors concluded that Preble's is a less genetically diverse population of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse.
        Second, Ramey et al. (2004) completed a morphometric analysis on skull measurements of the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (testing the same nine skull measurements that Krutzsch (1954) used to support his taxonomic assertions). Four repeated measurements were taken with digital calipers and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter as per Conner and Shenk (2003). Ramey et al. employed the following criterion for testing distinguishability between subspecies—≥ 90 percent of specimens correctly classified at a posterior probability of p> 0.95. Employing this method, the analysis of Ramey et al. found no basis for the quantitative morphological skull differences Krutzsch noted. While significant difference was observed between the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse in three of the nine skull measurements, two of these three differences did not correspond to those Krutzsch described.
        Third, Ramey et al. (2004) performed a critical review of Krutzsch's qualitative description of Preble's as a subspecies. The authors found that the skull shape and pelage differences noted by Krutzsch (1954) had no quantitative basis and considered them “unsupported opinion.”
        Fourth, Ramey et al. (2004) discussed ecological distinctiveness as an integral part of the species concept presented by Crandall et al. (2000). Crandall et al. (2000) proposed a hypothesis-testing approach describing management units based upon genetic and ecological distinctiveness. Crandall et al. advocated that ecological differences among populations can drive adaptive change that would not be detected by molecular markers alone. Ramey et al. also examined the literature for evidence of ecological differences between subspecies. They found no published ecological evidence for discreteness between Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. Ramey et al. asserts that this lack of published information supports his conclusion that these subspecies should be synonymized.
        Ramey et al. (2004) concluded that, based on the lack of genetic, morphological, or published ecological evidence for genetic distinctiveness between the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse, these subspecies should be synonymized (considered the same subspecies) as Zapus hudsonius campestris. This taxonomic revision has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and has not been incorporated into the formal taxonomy of the genus.
        Peer Review of Ramey et al. 2004
        The Ramey et al. (2004) report has undergone peer review. The Colorado Division of Wildlife solicited and received nine peer reviews of this report and transmitted those reviews to the Service on April 24, 2004. We solicited additional peer reviews focused on specific aspects of the report from seven scientists. In addition to the report, the Service sent reviewers maps of the meadow jumping mouse range; the May 13, 1998, final rule to list Preble's (63 FR 26517); and a November 5, 2003, working draft of a recovery plan for Preble's. Five peer reviewers responded to Service questions and provided comments on the study. Reviews from all 14 peer reviewers ranged from strong support of the work, to pointed criticism of study design, data interpretation, and conclusions. These reviews are available in their entirety at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/preble/. Because Ramey et al. 2004 remains unpublished, these peer reviews were crucial in our consideration of what constitutes the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the taxonomy of this subspecies. A summary of the peer reviews and other public comments follow below.
        Of the 14 peer reviews, 5 supported the Ramey et al. (2004) study and its conclusions (Robert Bradley, Texas Tech, in litt. 2004; Keith Crandall, Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004; David Hafner, New Mexico Museum of Natural History, in litt. 2004; Brett Riddle, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in litt. 2004; Lisette Waits, University of Idaho, in litt. 2004), 3 leaned toward support of the study and its conclusions (Carron Meaney, Meaney and Associates, Boulder, Colorado, in litt. 2004; Jeffry Mitton, University of Colorado, Boulder, in litt. 2004; Jack Sites, Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004), and 6 were generally critical of the study or skeptical of its conclusions (David Armstrong, University of Colorado, Boulder, in litt. 2004; Mary Ashley, University of Illinois at Chicago, in litt. 2004; Mary Conner, Utah State University, in litt. 2004; Marlis Douglas, Colorado State University, in litt. 2004; Sara Oyler-McCance, University of Denver and the Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and Systematics, in litt. 2004; Gary White, Colorado State University, in litt. 2004). However, some of these peer reviewers were also supportive of portions of the study.
        Those who supported the conclusions of Ramey et al. (2004) generally accepted most aspects of the report. Bradley (in litt. 2004) wrote that Ramey et al. was an “excellent piece of work” on a controversial issue and particularly liked the study design intended to test a series of hypotheses. Bradley thought that the morphological and mtDNA analyses are convincing in that the two taxa actually represent a single taxon. Crandall (in litt. 2004) believed appropriate markers and methods were used and that the conclusions were “right on”; he found the study impressive in its inclusion of both genetic and morphometric data coupled with an evaluation of previous work. Crandall thought the conclusions are well founded and well supported by the data. Hafner (in litt. 2004) noted that Ramey et al. employed appropriate methods, markers, evidence, and interpretation to convincingly argue that Preble's is not a valid subspecies, but that the synonymized entity remains imperiled. Riddle (in litt. 2004) thought that the data supported a lack of substantial morphological, ecological, and molecular differentiation between these two subspecies. Riddle thought this was a common outcome of molecular analyses of taxonomic subspecies within close geographic proximity, that are ecologically similar, and appear to have no surmounting biogeographic obstacles to movements across the landscape (from a historical perspective). While he did not support retaining Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse as separate taxonomic units, Riddle was concerned for the conservation status of the synonymized taxonomic unit. Waits (in litt. 2004) believed that the authors provided convincing evidence for synonymizing because the hypothesis testing did not reject the hypothesis that the two are essentially the same morphologically and genetically. Meaney (in litt. 2004) did not take a definitive position on the results or conclusions of Ramey et al., but called the paper overall good science. Mitton (in litt. 2004) noted that appropriate markers and methods were used and suggested he would support the conclusions of Ramey et al. if the grounds for the removal of certain specimens could be validated. Jack Sites (Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004) viewed Ramey et al. as tentative support for synonymizing and suggested synonymizing if subsequent study validated their results.

        Of the reviewers critical of the report, most felt its conclusion that Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse should be synonymized went beyond the data presented. Armstrong (in litt. 2004) saw the report as “a small piece of the puzzle of geographic variation in the meadow jumping mouse” and suggested that “a restricted, targeted investigation of this kind, laid out in an unpublished report, is not an appropriate vehicle for a taxonomic decision of the kind proposed.” Ashley (in litt. 2004) suggested that more data is needed to synonymize. Conner (in litt. 2004) thought that ecological, behavioral, physiological, and geographic factors needed to be included in any testing of Preble's taxonomy. Douglas (in litt. 2004) stated, “Limitations of the data affect resolution of analysis and thus render the results inconclusive” and that “the overall tone of the manuscript lacks objectivity.” Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004) had “ no problem with the study itself except for some of the conclusions made by the authors,” and did not feel that this study resolves the taxonomic question. Regarding the report's conclusion, White (in litt. 2004) stated, “ the report should conclude that no differences were detected given the measurements conducted, and should not jump to the unfounded conclusion that the two subspecies are identical.”

        Several reviewers discussed the use of mtDNA to delineate valid subspecies used by Ramey et al. (2004). For example, Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted that a timespan of greater than 10,000 years is the limit for mtDNA resolution and that taxa more recently diverged would be difficult to detect via mtDNA analysis. Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004) noted that the genetic data gathered by Ramey et al. is from only one locus, and that this locus represents only the maternal history, which could very well differ from other genetic material of the subspecies. Oyler-McCance, Sites (in litt. 2004) and Riddle discussed the potential for introgression of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse mtDNA on the Preble's nuclear background, but Riddle thought it unlikely to have happened simultaneously across the entire range of Preble's, given the generally fragmented nature of Preble's populations.

        Another issue bought up by several reviewers was use of “ancient DNA” from museum specimens. Ramey et al. (2004) noted that since museum collections are accessible for future scientific research, reliance on museum specimens means the study is repeatable. Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted that the use of museum specimens allows for specimens to be obtained from a large geographic area and for a study to be completed in short order. However, Douglas also detailed numerous problems with the use of ancient DNA such as the quality of DNA extracted from museum specimens is often inferior, making amplification difficult or the contamination of high-quality DNA from other samples possible.

        Another issue associated with the use of ancient DNA is the size of DNA fragments (i.e., the number of base pairs). Ramey et al. (2004) analyzed 355 base pairs of sequence data. Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted that this is a marginal data set for population level analyses; as a general rule, at least 1,000 base pairs should be evaluated to substantiate findings and make results conclusive. Although a larger number of base pairs is desirable (Courtney et al. 2004), mtDNA studies often utilize less than 1,000 base pairs (Riggs et al. 1997; Haig et al. 2004).

        Other issues were brought up by the reviewers. Douglas (in litt. 2004) also questioned the use of western jumping mouse as Ramey et al.'s outgroup. Several reviewers discussed Ramey et al.'s removal of a number of specimens from their study and suggested their presumed identities be verified through further testing (Armstrong in litt. 2004; Douglas in litt. 2004; Mitton in litt. 2004; Hafner in litt. 2004). Ashley (in litt. 2004), Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004), and Douglas (in litt. 2004) questioned Ramey et al.'s reliance on an AMOVA to evaluate variation within and among groups. Specifically, the standard for a subspecies employed by Ramey et al. requires greater diversity among accepted subspecies than within them. Ashley (in litt. 2004) also questioned the use of variation within and among groups as a “very strict criterion” to judge a subspecies” validity, and suggested that based on haplotype frequencies the two subspecies are “genetically quite distinct.”

        A number of the reviewers detailed the strengths and the weaknesses of the morphological portion of the analysis performed in Ramey et al. (2004). For example, Meaney (in litt. 2004) found that the morphometric data and analysis appear solid. Ashley (in litt. 2004) and Sites (in litt. 2004) noted Ramey et al.'s strongest case for synonymizing comes from the morphological aspects of the report, rather than the genetics analysis.

        Many of the reviewers, such as Waits (in litt. 2004), Meaney (in litt. 2004) and Riddle (in litt. 2004) discussed the conclusion by Ramey et al. (2004) regarding ecological discreteness. Ashley (in litt. 2004), Conner (in litt. 2004), Douglas (in litt. 2004), and Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004) said it was not clear that there had been any evaluation of ecological difference and noted that the authors gave no references, making it difficult to judge how thoroughly they looked. Conner and Oyler-McCance also questioned what variables were compared. In Crandall's view (in litt. 2004), clear ecological differences over evolutionary time would result in morphologic differences; as none were found, a lack of ecological differences can be inferred. Overall, Crandall and Mitton (in litt. 2004) agreed with Ramey et al. (2004) that there did not appear to be clear ecological distinctions between Preble's and closely related taxa that justify conservation for Preble's.
        Other Public Comments
        On March 31, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 16944) that the petition received on December 17, 2003, to delist Preble's presented substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. As part of this Notice, we requested information on the genetic and taxonomic classification of Preble's, the abundance and distribution of the subspecies, and the threats faced by Preble's in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act). In response, we received nine letters containing comments and information from government agencies (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, El Paso Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County Open Space and Natural Resources), organizations (Colorado Farm Bureau, Center for Native Ecosystems, Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development), and individuals. As noted above, 14 peer reviews of Ramey et al. 2004a were received and considered. For a full discussion of this issue, read the Peer Review section of this notice above.

        Colorado Department of Natural Resources called for the immediate delisting of the Preble's based on genetic studies by Ramey et al. (2004a) and increases in known occurrence. They contended that essential conservation efforts to protect the Preble's in Colorado would be carried on by State and local governments regardless of Federal listing status. They also provided extensive documentation of State and county efforts to conserve habitats within the Preble's range in Colorado.

        The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners supported delisting, described their efforts toward development of a regional Habitat Conservation Plan, and suggested that a decision to delist would save the county and its citizens time and money. The Douglas County Division of Open Space and Natural Resources described habitat conditions and conservation measures employed in Douglas County, and commented that Douglas County populations should not be considered a distinct population segment of wider jumping mouse distribution.
        In a single letter representing their combined comments, the Center for Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Native Ecosystem Council, and Forest Guardians opposed delisting of the Preble's. They discussed abundance and distribution of Preble's, genetics and taxonomic classification, threats to Preble's, and the status of the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. The Colorado Farm Bureau supported delisting of Preble's and commented on the lack of threats to Preble's from agricultural activities. The Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development, one of the petitioners, provided comments that largely paralleled the contentions made in their petition. Three private individuals provided comments—One contending that delisting based on available genetic studies was premature; one largely criticizing the original listing; and one discussing threats to Preble's in the broader context of human impacts to the environment.
        Petition Finding
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the taxonomy and biology of this species. We reviewed the petition and associated documents, information available in our files, and other published and unpublished information submitted to us during the public comment period following our 90-day petition finding. We reviewed new data and other information on the genetics, taxonomy, life history, ecology, status, and existing threats to Preble's.
        At this time, we view Ramey et al. (2004) as the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the taxonomy of the Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. Within the next year, the Service expects additional genetics information (i.e., nuclear DNA results) that will verify (or refute) the conclusions of Ramey et al. The peer reviews of the report suggested a majority (8 out of 14) either support or lean toward supporting the taxonomic conclusions of Ramey et al. (2004). Therefore, on the basis of the lack of distinct genetic and morphologic differences between the two putative subspecies, we conclude that Preble's is likely not a valid subspecies of meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius). Based on the above conclusion, we find that the petitioned action is warranted because the original listing of Preble's as a subspecies of meadow jumping mouse was in error. Accordingly, we propose to delist or remove Preble's from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11.
        The Service will evaluate threats to the combined entity (Zapus hudsonius campestris) in all or a significant portion of its range before this rule is finalized. This finding and proposed rule do not attempt to analyze threats to the combined entity, Z. h. campestris. We are initiating a status review and will analyze the threats to the species in the final rule. Finally, as discussed in the 90-day finding (69 FR 16944), the Service will analyze whether the Preble's portion of Z. h. campestris qualifies as a Distinct Population Segment in need of protection before this rule is finalized.

        At this time, the Service is seeking additional information to perform this analysis. We currently have only limited information regarding the distribution, life history, ecology, and habitat of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse portion of Z. h. campestris, and no information regarding its abundance or population trends. While we have some information regarding land management and habitat conditions in the Black Hills, we lack information connecting these habitat conditions to population effects. Therefore, we are seeking additional information and data on meadow jumping mouse in the vicinity of the Black Hills. More detail of what is sought is outlined in the Public Comments Solicited section of this proposed notice and rule.
        In making this determination we have followed the procedures set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424).
        Effects of the Rule
        Critical Habitat
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as—(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
        Critical habitat was designated for the Preble's on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275). The designation included eight habitat units totaling approximately 12,632 hectares (31,222 acres) found along 578.1 km (359.2 mi) of rivers and streams in eastern Colorado and in southeastern Wyoming. The designation includes river and stream reaches and adjacent areas in the North Platte River and South Platte River drainages. By removing the Preble's from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, this proposal, if finalized, will eliminate all currently designated critical habitat for the species.
        Special Regulations Under Section 4(d)
        Section 9 of the Act prohibits take of endangered wildlife. The Act defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, the Act also provides for the authorization of take and exceptions to the take prohibitions. Take of listed species by non-Federal property owners can be permitted through the process set forth in section 10 of the Act. For federally funded or permitted activities, take of listed species may be allowed through the consultation process of section 7 of the Act. While section 9 of the Act establishes prohibitions applicable to endangered species, the Service has issued regulations (50 CFR 17.31) applying those same prohibitions to threatened wildlife. These regulations may be tailored for a particular threatened species through promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act. When a special rule has been established for a threatened species, the general regulations for some section 9 prohibitions do not apply to that species, and the special rule contains the prohibitions, and exemptions, necessary and advisable to conserve that species.

        On May 22, 2001, the Service adopted special regulations governing take of the threatened Preble's (66 FR 28125). The special regulations provide exemption from take provisions under section 9 of the Act for certain activities related to rodent control, ongoing agricultural activities, landscape maintenance, and existing uses of water. On October 1, 2002, the Service amended those regulations to provide exemptions for certain activities related to noxious weed control and ongoing ditch maintenance activities (67 FR 61531). On February 24, 2004, the Service proposed permanent extension of the amended special regulations (69 FR 8359). On May 20, 2004, the Service extended the special regulations permanently (69 FR 29101). The current special regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(l) will be eliminated by this proposal, if finalized, because Preble's will no longer be protected by the Act.
        Future Conservation Measures
        Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor a species for at least 5 years after it is delisted based on recovery. Because Preble's is being delisted due to new information that demonstrates that the original classification was in error, rather than due to recovery, the Act does not require us to monitor this animal species following its delisting.
        Public Comments Solicited

        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Generally, we seek information, data, and comments concerning the taxonomic classification and conservation status of Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. More specifically, we seek data from any systematic surveys for Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse, as well as any studies that may show population size or trends. We request quantitative information regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat use of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse, as well as information regarding the applicability of information relevant to other subspecies. We solicit information on the threats faced by the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse and Preble's in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act). We seek information regarding the effects of current land management on population distribution and abundance of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. And finally, we seek information regarding the possibility of contact and interaction between Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse and adjacent subspecies of meadow jumping mouse (i.e., Zapus hudsonius intermedius and Z. h. pallidus) or other information informing a Distinct Population Segment analysis.
        Submit comments as indicated under ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit comments by e-mail, please avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your e-mail message.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and other information received, as well as supporting information used to write this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. In making a final decision on this proposal, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this proposal.
        Public Hearing
        The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, Ecological Services, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
        Peer Review

        In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists for peer review of this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting of this species. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision document, and we will consider their input as part of our process of making a final decision on the proposal.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency information collection and recordkeeping activities (5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that “ten or more persons” refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. This rule does not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        References

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

            § 17.11
            [Amended]
            2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for “Mouse, Preble's meadow jumping” under “Mammals” from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

            § 17.40
            [Amended]
            3. Section 17.40 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (l).

            § 17.95
            [Amended]

            4. Section 17.95(a) is amended by removing the entry for critical habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei).

            Dated: January 28, 2005.
            Marshall P. Jones Jr.,
            Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-2020 Filed 1-31-05; 10:56 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P