        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        [I.D. 021607C]
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale; Public Hearing

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          On April 20, 2007, NMFS proposed the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). As part of that proposal, NMFS announced a public comment period to end on June 19, 2007, and then extended the comment period to August 3, 2007. NMFS has received requests for public hearings on this issue. In response, NMFS announced two public hearings to be held in Alaska in a previous Federal Register notice. In addition, NMFS is announcing a separate hearing in this notice that will be held in Silver Spring, Maryland, in order to provide greater opportunity for public comment.

          DATES:
           The hearing will be held on July 31, 2007, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. in Silver Spring, MD. Written comments must be received by August 3, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          The July 31, 2007, hearing will be held at NOAA Headquarters, Building 2, Conference Room 2358, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.
          Written comments can be sent to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
          • E-mail: CIB-ESA-Endangered@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          • Mail: P. O Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building : 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For specific information regarding the July 31, 2007, hearing in Silver Spring, MD, contact Chris Uyeda, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, telephone (301) 713-1401 . For all other information regarding the proposed listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale contact Brad Smith, NMFS, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517, telephone (907) 271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS, (907) 586-7235; or Marta Nammack, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On April 20, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule (72 FR 19854) to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. This action followed completion of the Cook Inlet beluga whale status review, which found this population to be at risk of extinction within the next 100 years and described NMFS' determination that this population constitutes a “species”, or distinct population segment under the ESA.
        On June 13, 2007, in response to requests, NMFS announced that two public hearings would be held in Alaska regarding the proposed listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale (72 FR 32605). Following this announcement, NMFS received an additional request for a public hearing to be held in Silver Spring. This request was submitted beyond the 45-day statutory deadline for public hearing requests (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(E)). However, NMFS has decided to voluntarily honor the request in order to provide additional opportunities for public comment.
        Public Hearings

        Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In past ESA rule-makings NMFS has conducted traditional public hearings, consisting of recorded oral testimony from interested individuals. This format, although providing a means for public input, does not provide opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. NMFS believes that the traditional public hearing format can be improved upon by also including a brief presentation on the results of the Cook Inlet beluga Status Review and other topics of interest.
        The preferred means for providing public comment to the official record is via written testimony prepared in advance of the meeting which may also be presented orally. Blank “comment sheets” will be provided at the meetings for those without prepared written comments, and opportunity will also be provided for additional oral testimony. There is no need to register for these hearings.

        In scheduling these public hearings, NMFS has anticipated that many affected stakeholders and members of the public may prefer to discuss the proposed listing directly with staff during the public comment period. However, these public meetings are not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to continue to comment and provide input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, and the Internet; see ADDRESSES) up until the scheduled close of the comment period on August 3, 2007.
        References

        The proposed rule, status review, maps, a list of the references cited in this document, and other materials relating to the proposed listing can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/.

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

          Dated: June 19, 2007.
          James H. Lecky,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E7-12262 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814 & EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692; FRL-9908-43-Region 4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility) for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          On April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), regarding the infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. On October 31, 2012, EPA received a SIP submission from FDEP regarding the infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, on October 22, 2013, FDEP supplemented the three aforementioned infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA is proposing to approve the elements of these infrastructure SIP submissions, as supplemented on October 22, 2013, as they relate to the protection of visibility in other states.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments related to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 SIP submissions, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814, and related to the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP submission, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692, by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-Mail: R4-RDS-epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
          4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814,” for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 SIP submissions or “EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692” for the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP submission, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 SIP submissions, or to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692 for the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP submission. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 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 information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sean Lakeman or Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562-9043. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562-9140.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m3. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On March 27, 2008 (77 FR 16436), EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

        EPA received Florida's infrastructure submissions on April 18, 2008, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; on September 23, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and on October 31, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rulemaking proposed through today's action only addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements. Florida supplemented its September 23, 2009, submission on April 18, 2011, to further address the required elements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and it supplemented the April 18, 2008, September 23, 2009, and October 31, 2012, submissions on October 23, 2013, stating that Florida has met the section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) visibility requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through EPA's approval of the State's regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida's visibility program into the State's implementation plan.
        II. What are states required to address under Section 110(a)(2)(D)?
        Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct elements, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”) and to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

        Today's proposed rulemaking pertains only to requirements related to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously described, requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states. EPA's rationale for today's proposal that Florida is meeting these prong 4 requirements for purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below.
        III. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Visibility Element?

        EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS meet the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because the Agency has approved Florida's regional haze SIP,1
           and Florida has confirmed, through its October 22, 2013, supplement to its SIP submissions, that it has met the prong 4 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for these NAAQS through EPA's approval of the State's regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida's visibility program into the State's implementation plan. Federal regulations require that a state's regional haze SIP contain a long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state.2
           A state participating in a regional planning process, such as Florida, must include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.3

           EPA's approval of Florida's regional haze SIP therefore ensures that emissions from Florida are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states, satisfying the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.4

            1 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013).

            2 40 CFR 51.308(d).

            3 See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida participated in the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional planning organization, a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

            4 See EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” at pp. 32-35, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(1)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (September 25, 2009) at pp. 5-6, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.

        IV. Proposed Action

        As described above, EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from FDEP as addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve FDEP's April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and FDEP's October 31, 2011, submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as supplemented on October 22, 2013, as they pertain to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
        V. 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. See 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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: March 10, 2014.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2014-06225 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU76

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended required determinations.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the plant Catesbaea melanocarpa (no common name) and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $132,300 to $441,000 over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. If you previously submitted comments on the proposed rule, you need not resubmit them, because we have incorporated them into the public record and will fully considered them in preparation of our final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments on this document and the proposed rule published at 71 FR 48883, Aug. 22, 2006 until April 13, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and information concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
          1. Mail or hand-deliver to Edwin E. Muñiz, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Office, Road 301 Km. 5.1, P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, PR 00622.
          2. Send by electronic mail (e-mail) to marelisa_rivera@fws.gov. Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
          3. Fax to 787-851-7440.
          4. Submit comments on the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Marelisa Rivera, Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone, 787-851-7297, extension 231; facsimile, 787-851-7440. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we hereby solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule and the draft economic analysis. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons we should or should not determine any habitat to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
        (2) Specific information on the presence of Catesbaea melanocarpa, particularly: of the areas that were occupied at the time of listing and contain features that are essential for the conservation of the species, which areas we should include in the designations, and why; and, of the areas that were not occupied at listing, which are essential to the conservation of the species, and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
        (5) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that we may have inadvertently overlooked;
        (6) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (7) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;
        (8) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;
        (9) Whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs and benefits that could result from the designation;
        (10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to critical habitat designation in any way, to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments; and
        (11) Whether the benefits of exclusion in any particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please submit comments electronically to marelisa_rivera@fws.gov. Please also include “Attn: Catesbaea melanocarpa” in your e-mail subject header, and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your electronic message, contact us directly by calling the Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Service Office at 787-851-7297.

        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 names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, we will release this information. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

        You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis for critical habitat designation by mail from the Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES or on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/southeast.

        Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this analysis and on the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas we proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), or not appropriate for exclusion. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact.
        Background

        On August 22, 2006, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa (71 FR 48883). We proposed to designate approximately 50 acres (ac) (20 hectares (ha)) in one unit located in Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, as critical habitat for C. melanocarpa. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for C. melanocarpa on or before August 15, 2007.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographic 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 essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If we make our proposed rule final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas we have designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Economic Analysis

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the August 22, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 48883) to designate critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.

        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of Catesbaea melanocarpa, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for C. melanocarpa in the critical habitat area. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs incurred since the date we listed the species as endangered (64 FR 13116, March 17, 1999) and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
        The draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $132,300 to $441,000 to the private landowners over a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing. The analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development, and public projects and activities. Overall, the analysis does not anticipate a decrease in the amount of construction activity on St. Croix as a result of the proposed rule. As a result, we do not anticipate small developers and construction firms to be affected.
        As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information we receive during the comment period.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our August 22, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 48883), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice, we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order 13132 and Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13211, Executive Order 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa, we estimate costs related to conservation activities for C. melanocarpa pursuant sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act to range from $132,300 to $441,000 over a 20-year period. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we do not anticipate that the proposed designation of critical habitat would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget did not formally review the proposed rule or accompanying draft economic analysis.
        Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once an agency has determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for C. melanocarpa would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.

        In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of Catesbaea melanocarpa and proposed designation of critical habitat. The property proposed for designation is managed by the Virgin Islands Title and Trust Company on behalf of several individual landowners. This analysis estimates that these landowners could lose from $132,300 to $441,000 over a 20-year period. However, private landowners are generally not considered to be small entities. Furthermore, this analysis does not anticipate a decrease in the amount of construction activity on St. Croix as a result of the proposed rule. As a result, we do not anticipate that small developers and construction firms would be affected. Please refer to our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa is considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 due to its potential raising of novel legal and policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on the information in the draft economic analysis, we do not expect energy-related impacts associated with C. melanocarpa conservation activities within proposed critical habitat. As such, we do not expect the proposed designation of critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

        (b) As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa, we expect the impacts on nonprofits and small governments to be negligible. There is no record of consultations between us and any of these governments since we listed C. melanocarpa as endangered on March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13116). It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects will be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 (of the Act) consultations for C. melanocarpa within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for C. melanocarpa will significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Executive Order 12630—Takings

        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for Catesbaea melanocarpa. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for C. melanocarpa does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Caribbean Fish and Wildlife Service Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: March 5, 2007.
          David M. Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E7-4542 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 081303D]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting/public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will meet on September 23, 2003, at 12 noon Hawaiian Standard Time to review the draft regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagics Fishery of the Western Pacific (Pelagics FMP), which includes a range of alternatives (including no action) that permit some access by pelagic longline vessels to the southern fishing grounds during April and May while continuing to conserve sea turtles.  The Council will also consider and may take final action on conservation measures intended to offset any potential harm that the Hawaii-based longline fishery could still pose to turtles.  In addition, the Council will discuss potential modifications to the current northern prohibition on shallow-set longlining and may take initial action on this issue.

          ADDRESSES:
          The Council meeting will be held via telephone conference call at the Council offices, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu Hawaii 96813; telephone:  808-522-8220; Call in number:  1-808-527-2929 PIN 5785; FAX:  808-522-8226.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:  808-522-8220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The agenda during the Council meeting will include the following items:
        1. Pelagic Fisheries
        A. Status of Biological Opinion, litigation and mediation
        B. Final action on modifications to the current longline seasonal southern area closure.
        C.   Initial action to consider modifications to the current northern prohibition on shallow-set longlining.
        In 2002, the Council developed a regulatory framework adjustment to the Pelagics FMP which was intended to minimize interactions with, and harm to, Pacific sea turtles.  These measures stemmed from the non-discretionary Reasonable and Prudent Alternative contained in a Biological Opinion issued in 2001 by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act.  Among the various measures implemented were a prohibition on shallow-set longline fishing north of the equator, and a seasonal area closure from 15° N. lat. to the equator, and from 145° W. long. to 180° long. to all fishing by pelagic longline vessels during April and May of each year.  These measures have contributed to reductions in sea turtle interactions.  However, the southern area closure exacts a significant economic burden on the Hawaii-based longline fleet because it is unable to access these fishing grounds when bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks are seasonally abundant during April and May.  At its 118th meeting in June 2003, the Council took initial action to consider modifying the southern area closure to reduce the economic impact on the longline fishery while continuing to conserve turtles.  The Council also directed its staff to continue preparation of a regulatory amendment for potential changes to the Pelagics FMP, including a detailed analysis of a range of modifications to the southern area closure and the impacts of those alternatives on sea turtles, fisheries, and the environment.  At its 119th meeting, the Council will review this draft regulatory amendment to the Pelagics FMP, which includes a range of alternatives (including no action) that permit some access by pelagic longline vessels to the southern fishing grounds during April and May while continuing to conserve sea turtles.  The Council will also consider and may take final action on conservation measures intended to offset any potential harm that the Hawaii-based longline fishery could still pose to turtles.  In addition, the Council will discuss potential modifications to the current northern prohibition on shallow-set longlining and may take initial action on this issue.
        2. Other Business
        Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808)522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated:  August 22, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-21953  Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018—AT88
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, and notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for the proposal to designate critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of efforts to protect the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat, collectively referred to as “flycatcher conservation activities.” In the case of habitat conservation, these costs would reflect the costs associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures. The analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed and looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date the species was listed. The draft economic analysis finds that over a 10-year time period costs associated with southwestern willow flycatcher conservation activities are forecast to range from $29.2 to $39.5 million per year. Comments previously submitted on the October 12, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 60706) and the extensions of comment period published December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72161), or March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16474) need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We will hold eight public informational sessions and hearings (see
            DATES and ADDRESSES sections).

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see
            ADDRESSES section) on or before May 31, 2005, or at the public hearings.
          We will hold public informational sessions from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., on the following dates:
          1. May 2, 2005: Escondido, CA.
          2. May 3, 2005: City of Chino, CA.
          3. May 9, 2005: Las Vegas, NV.
          4. May 10, 2005: Lake Isabella, CA.
          5. May 16, 2005: Mesa, AZ.
          6. May 17, 2005: Silver City, NM.
          7. May 18, 2005: Albuquerque, NM.
          8. May 19, 2005: Alamosa, CO.

          ADDRESSES:

        Meetings
        The public informational sessions and hearings will be held at the following locations:
        1. Escondido, CA: California Center for the Arts, 340 N. Escondido Blvd., Escondido, CA 92025.
        2. City of Chino, CA: El Prado Golf Course, 6555 Pine Ave., Chino, CA 91710.
        3. Las Vegas, NV: Cashman Center, 850 N. Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101.
        4. Lake Isabella, CA: Lake Isabella Senior Center, Room 1, 6405 Lake Isabella Blvd., Lake Isabella, CA 93240.
        5. Mesa, AZ: Mesa Community and Conference Center, 263 N. Center St., Mesa, AZ 85211.
        6. Silver City, NM: Western New Mexico University, Global Resource Room, 1000 W. College, 12th and E St., Silver City, NM 88061.
        7. Albuquerque, NM: Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Special Events Center, 2401 12th St. NW., Albuquerque, NM 87104.
        8. Alamosa, CO: Adams State University, Student Union Bldg., Rooms 308 & 309, First and Stadium Dr., Alamosa, CO 81102.
        Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at the phone number and address below as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing. Information regarding this proposal is available in alternative formats upon requests.
        If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental assessment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods:
        1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand-delivery to the Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
        2. Written comments may be sent by facsimile to (602) 242-2513.

        3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to WIFLcomments@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below.

        You may obtain copies of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment by mail or by visiting our Web site at http://arizonaes.fws.gov/SWWF_PCH_Oct.htm. You may review comments and materials received, and review supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed rule by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (telephone 602-242-0210, facsimile 602-242-2513) or by electronic mail at steve_spangle@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment. On the basis of public comment, during the development of our final determination, we may find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or not appropriate for exclusion. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the species resulting from designation;
        (2) Specific information on the distribution of the southwestern willow flycatcher, the amount and distribution of the species' habitat, and which habitat is essential to the conservation of the species, and why;
        (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Whether our approach to listing or critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments;
        (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat or coextensively from the proposed listing, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
        (6) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
        (7) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical habitat;
        (8) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive from the designation;
        (9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation; and
        (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the listing.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see
          ADDRESSES section). Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at (602) 242-0210.
        Background

        We proposed to designate for the southwestern willow flycatcher 376,095 acres (ac) (152,124 hectares (ha)) [including approximately 1,556 stream miles (2,508 stream kilometers)] of critical habitat, which includes various stream segments and their associated riparian areas, not exceeding the 100-year floodplain or flood prone area, on Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands in southern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, south-central Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 60706) on October 12, 2004, pursuant to a court order.
        On September 30, 2003, in response to a complaint brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico ordered us to propose critical habitat on or by September 30, 2004, and complete a final designation by September 30, 2005. Additional background information is available in the October 12, 2004, proposal to designate critical habitat.
        Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Section 4 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to designate as critical habitat. We are announcing the availability of a draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for the proposal to designate certain areas as critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Mapping Corrections for Proposed Units of Critical Habitat in Southern California and for the West Fork of the Little Colorado River

        Following the publication of the proposed rule on October 12, 2004, we discovered that the coordinates for river reaches in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California, were not correctly projected, causing a shift in the proposed critical habitat polygons of approximately 262 feet (ft) (80 meters (m)) to the west. We have since corrected the data projections to accurately reflect what we are considering for designation or exclusion from proposed critical habitat, and we provide the corrected start- and end-point coordinates below. Corrected Geographic Information System layers will be available at http://crithab.fws.gov. The figures provided for the total amount of critical habitat being proposed [376,095 acres (ac) (152,124 hectares (ha)) [including approximately 1,556 stream miles (mi) (2,508 stream kilometers (km)] remain accurate.

            River
            Start latitude

            Start longitude

            End latitude

            End longitude

            (5) Santa Ynez Management Unit:

            Santa Ynez River
            34.5972867
            -120.1744120
            34.6596711
            -120.4394929

            (6) Santa Ana Management Unit:

            Bear Creak
            34.1609651
            -117.0151013
            34.2422080
            -116.9772861

            Mill Creek
            34.0766521
            -116.8443877
            34.0911038
            -117.1189177

            Oak Glen Creek
            34.0386250
            -117.0646375
            34.0483423
            -116.9394664

            San Timoteo Wash
            34.0044045
            -117.1657189
            34.0696468
            -117.4534886

            Santa Ana River
            34.1513001
            -116.7350693
            33.9673435
            -117.4534886

            Waterman Creek
            34.2169729
            -117.2909403
            34.1863475
            -117.2721230

            Wilson Creek
            34.0102690
            -117.1074706
            34.0386049
            -117.0646183

            Yucaipa Creek
            34.0102933
            -117.1075071
            34.0044047
            -117.1656724

            (7) San Diego Management Unit:

            Christianitos Creek
            33.4202297
            -117.5711573
            33.4702954
            -117.5643999

            San Mateo Creek
            33.4193065
            -117.5369622
            33.3859065
            -117.5935937

            San Onofre Creek
            33.3947622
            -117.5253484
            33.3810809
            -117.5783356

            (8) San Diego Management Unit:

            Deluz Creek
            33.3631634
            -117.3233833
            33.4283909
            -117.3215173

            Las Flores Creek
            33.3386714
            -117.4116194
            33.2917863
            -117.4657736

            Las Pulgas Creek
            33.3612114
            -117.3905836
            33.3386355
            -117.4115600

            Pilgrim Creek
            33.2412419
            -117.3359159
            33.3115680
            -117.2982166

            San Luis Rey River
            33.2026115
            -117.3901467
            33.2408111
            -116.7646876

            Santa Margarita River
            33.4331091
            -117.1976515
            33.2326142
            -117.4168773

            Temecula Creek
            33.4982324
            -116.9773975
            33.3637228
            -116.7592014

            (9) San Diego/Salton Management Units:

            Agua Hedionda Creek
            33.1568123
            -117.2241974
            33.1394463
            -117.3150591

            Agua Hedionda Lagoon
            33.1396776
            -117.3150857
            33.1426464
            -117.3411351

            Cuyamaca Reservoir
            32.9897875
            -116.5871030
            32.9922459
            -116.5626160

            San Dieguito River
            32.9771651
            -117.2515713
            33.0907715
            -116.9646098

            San Felipe Creek
            33.1455161
            -116.5448283
            33.1848207
            -116.6238274

            Santa Ysabel River
            33.1184844
            -116.7865468
            33.0909411
            -116.9646660

            Temescal Creek
            33.2308371
            -116.8251816
            33.1203200
            -116.8528263

            (10) San Diego Management Unit:

            San Diego River
            32.8847273
            -116.8112102
            32.8281759
            -117.0527358

            (11) Owens Management Unit:

            Owens River
            37.5877424
            -118.6992268
            37.1354380
            -118.2419417

            (12) Kern Management Unit:

            Kern River—South Fork
            35.7176912
            -118.1808882
            35.6629518
            -118.3705422

            (13) Mohave Management Unit:

            Deep Creek
            34.2871220
            -117.1269778
            34.3404079
            -117.2457049

            Holcomb Creek
            34.2870519
            -117.1270054
            34.3049219
            -116.9646522

            Mojave River
            34.4701947
            -117.2546695
            34.5838662
            -117.3374023

        In our proposed rule we inaccurately mapped the extent of essential habitat on the West Fork of the Little Colorado River in Arizona. We are correcting that error by adding a Service Road 113 (longitude −109.507567, latitude 33.959677) to a new endpoint approximately 170 ft (51.8 m) east of the Mt. Baldy Wilderness boundary (longitude −109.516209, latitude 33.958302).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: April 20, 2005.
          David P. Smith,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 05-8488 Filed 4-25-05; 1:06 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 2, 22, 24, 25, 27, 90, 95 and 101
        [ET Docket No. 15-170; DA 16-348]
        Incorporating the American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services (ANSI C63.26-2015) Into the Commission's Rules

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission acknowledges the publication of ANSI C63.26-2015 “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services” and seeks comment on incorporating it into the Commission's rules by reference as part of an open rulemaking proceeding that addresses its equipment authorization (EA) rules and procedures. The standard was recently published and is now an “active standard”—that is, the standards association considers it to be valid, current, and approved.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before May 5, 2016. Reply Comment Date: May 16, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

            Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

            Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

          U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
          Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702, email: Brian.Butler@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418-2989.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's (Public Notice) ET Docket No 15-170, released April 1, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

        Synopsis
        By this Synopsis, we acknowledge the publication of ANSI C63.26-2015 “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services,” and seek comment on incorporating it into the Commission's rules by reference as part of an open rulemaking proceeding that addresses our equipment authorization (EA) rules and procedures. Comments and reply comments should be filed in the existing EA docket, ET Docket No. 15-170.
        As background, ANSI C63.26 was developed by the ANSI ASC C63 in order to provide manufacturers and test laboratories with the reliable and consistent measurement procedures necessary to demonstrate that transmitters used in licensed radio services comply with the Commission's technical requirements. The standard was recently published and is now an “active standard”—that is, the standards association considers it to be valid, current, and approved.
        The Commission, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket 15-170 (EA NPRM), initiated an examination of ways to update and modernize the rules and procedures associated with the equipment authorization program for radiofrequency (RF) devices. In the EA NPRM, the Commission acknowledged the then-pending ANSI C63.26 standard, and observed that references to the applicable measurement procedures in ANSI C63.26 could replace measurement procedures set forth in the part 2 equipment authorization rules and referred to in many specific licensed service subparts. In particular, the Commission noted that section 2.947 of the rules states that it will accept data which has been measured in accordance with standards or measurement procedures acceptable to the Commission and published by national engineering societies.

        ANSI C63.26 is particularly relevant to the testing of digital devices, since our existing rules mostly address older analog technologies, and the supplemental guidance for digital device measurements has generally been provided by OET on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, because the standard complements the ANSI C63.10 standard for measurement procedures for unlicensed devices (which the Commission recently incorporated by reference), the use of ANSI C63.26 would facilitate the testing of devices that contain both licensed and unlicensed transmitters.
        In the EA NPRM, the Commission asked parties to “take the ANSI C63.26 standards development into account when drafting their comments,” anticipated that it would “soon have to consider whether we should allow for the use of ANSI C63.26 once it has been adopted . . . and published,” and proposed “to seek comment on incorporating the ANSI C63.26 into our rules as soon as the standard becomes final.” As the standard has become final, and through this Public Notice, we seek comment on modifying section 2.910 of our rules, 47 CFR 2.910, to incorporate ANSI C63.26 by reference. By supplementing the record within existing Docket 15-170, the Commission will be able to consider the use of ANSI C63.26 as part of its comprehensive review of the EA process.
        In addition to commenting on the potential adoption of ANSI C63.26 generally, commenters should address how the Commission would incorporate the standard into our existing rules, as discussed in the NPRM. For example, what are the specific part 2 measurement procedures that ANSI C63.26 would replace, and which individual service rules should be replaced with cross-references to part 2 (and, by extension, ANSI C63.26)? These filings should be made in ET Docket No. 15-170 within the pleading cycle time period listed above.

        Incorporation by Reference. The OFR recently revised the regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes ANSI standards. Copies of the standards are available for purchase from these organizations: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore.

        ANSI C63.26-2015, “American National Standard for Compliance Testing of Transmitters Used in Licensed Radio Services,” is ANSI approved and was published on January 15, 2016. The IBR previously proposed in 80 FR 46900 (2015) would also include this standard in multiple rule sections.

        This standard, ANSI C63.26-2015, covers the procedures for testing a wide variety of licensed transmitters; including but not limited to transmitters operating under parts 22, 24, 25, 27, 90, 95 and 101 of the FCC Rules, transmitters subject to the general procedures in part 2 of the FCC Rules and procedures for transmitters not covered in the FCC Rules. The standard also addresses specific topics; e.g., ERP/EIRP, average power measurements and instrumentation requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Ronald T. Repasi,
          Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.

      [FR Doc. 2016-09058 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P