        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Part 174
        [Docket No. FRA-2011-0004]
        Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Transportation of Hazardous Materials

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of Public Meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces that FRA has scheduled a public meeting in Washington, DC, to discuss its process of issuing movement approvals pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 174.50. In an effort to continually improve this aspect of its safety program, FRA is undertaking a comprehensive review of its process of issuing movement approvals, and through this public meeting seeks to gain input from all persons and stakeholders affected or interested in this aspect of FRA's hazardous materials program.

          DATES:
          The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2011, starting at 1 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public meeting will be held at the DOT Conference Center, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 in the Oklahoma Conference Room (Rooms A-B-C).

            Oral Presentations: In order to ensure all interested parties are provided ample opportunity to speak at the meeting, any person wishing to present an oral statement should notify Mr. Karl Alexy, P.E., Engineer—Hazardous Materials, FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, at least 4 business days before the date of the public meeting. Mr. Alexy can be reached by e-mail at Karl.Alexy@dot.gov or by phone at (202) 493-6245. For information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Alexy as soon as possible.
          FRA will make a teleconference line available for any interested party who wishes to attend the meeting by phone. Any interested party desiring to attend the meeting by phone should contact Mr. Alexy as soon as possible.

            Written Comments: We invite interested parties who are unable to attend the meeting, or who otherwise desire to submit written comments or data, to submit any relevant information, data, or comments to the above-referenced docket (FRA-2011-0004). Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          Comments submitted by March 24, 2011, will be considered by FRA. Comments submitted after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Karl Alexy, Engineer-Hazardous Materials Division, at (202) 493-6245 or Karl.Alexy@dot.gov; or William Schoonover, Staff Director, Hazardous Materials Division, at (202) 493-6229 or William.Schoonover@dot.gov, FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Pursuant to 49 CFR 174.50, FRA has the authority to approve the rail movement of bulk hazardous materials packages that do not conform to the hazardous materials regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). The genesis of 49 CFR 174.50 was the 1996 consolidation of various regulatory provisions that prohibited railroads from forwarding damaged packages, leaking tank cars (except for necessary short moves), or any tank car found in noncompliance with the HMR, except under the terms of a DOT exemption (now referred to as a DOT “special permit”). In consolidating these regulatory provisions and authorizing FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer to approve the movements of nonconforming packages by rail, the stated goal of the Research and Special Programs Administration (the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's predecessor agency) was to make clear that the movement of packages that do not conform to the HMR was prohibited, but at the same time, provide a method to allow bulk packages (including tank cars) that no longer meet their packaging specifications to be moved safely by rail when necessary to effect corrective actions and repairs. See 60 FR 65,492 and 65,495 (December 19, 1995); 61 FR 28,666 and 28,669 (June 5, 1996); and 65 FR 50,450 and 50,455 (August 18, 2000).

        The number of movement approvals issued by FRA over the last several years has steadily increased. FRA issued 380 movement approvals in calendar year (CY) 2007, 444 in CY 2008, 645 in CY 2009, and 906 in CY 2010. Movement approvals have been issued for such nonconformances as service equipment, tank shell, or lining failures; overloaded packagings; jacket, tank car shell, or head damage; stub sill weld cracks; failures of heater coils or thermal protection systems; tank cars overdue for required tests; and other reasons. Significant information on the movement approval process can be found on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/OTMAapprovalrequest1010.pdf.

        As part of FRA's ongoing regulatory review efforts, and given the increasing number of movement approvals FRA has issued over the last several years, FRA believes a comprehensive review of its process will ensure the continued efficient handling of movement approval requests, while at the same time, ensuring that all relevant safety aspects of such requests are adequately considered. FRA encourages all interested persons to participate in this meeting, either in person at the address noted above or via telephone. We encourage participants (wishing to make oral statements) to plan on attending the entire meeting, since FRA may not be able to accommodate competing demands to appear at specific times. A transcript of the meeting will be made available to meeting participants and the public through the above-referenced docket (FRA-2011-0004).

          Privacy: Anyone is able to search all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 665, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2011.
          Robert C. Lauby,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative Operations.

      [FR Doc. 2011-1455 Filed 1-24-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053; Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AY11; 1018-AZ39
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle and Designation of Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 2, 2012, proposed listing decision and proposed designation of critical habitat for Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA), a draft environmental assessment (EA), an amendment to the 2009 Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We also announce the availability of 2012 Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle survey results that were not available when the proposed rule was being written. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, the Draft EA, the Conservation Agreement amendment, and the amended required determinations section. We also announce a public hearing to be held in Kanab, Utah.

          DATES:

            Written Comments: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before June 5, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

            Public Information Meeting: We will hold a public information meeting in Kanab, Utah, on May 22, 2013, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. (see ADDRESSES section, below).

            Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing in Kanab, Utah, on May 22, 2013, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (see ADDRESSES section, below).

          ADDRESSES:

            Document Availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053 or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Ecological Services Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain a copy of the draft economic analysis (DEA), the draft environmental assessment (Draft EA), the 2009 Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (Conservation Agreement) amendment, and the 2012 Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle survey results at
            http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Ecological Services Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the listing proposal to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053, and submit comments on the critical habitat proposal and associated DEA and Draft EA to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of the two dockets.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the listing proposal by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal, DEA, and Draft EA by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          (3) Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing: Both the public information meeting and the public hearing will be held at the Kanab City Library, 374 North Main, Kanab, Utah 84741.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119; telephone 801-975-3330; or facsimile 801-975-3331. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on: (1) Our proposed listing as threatened and proposed critical habitat designation for Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle that was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60208); (2) our DEA of the proposed designation; (3) our Draft EA; (4) the Conservation Agreement amendment; (5) 2012 Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle surveys and how this information should be considered in the designation of critical habitat; and (6) our amendment of required determinations. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are also notifying the public that we will publish two separate rules for the final listing determination and the final critical habitat determination for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. The final listing rule will publish under the existing Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053, and the final critical habitat designation will publish under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020.
        We request that you provide comments specifically on our listing determination under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053.
        We request that you provide comments specifically on the critical habitat determination and related DEA and Draft EA under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether there are threats to these species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent;
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The amount and distribution of Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle habitat;
        (b) What areas that are occupied and that contain features essential to the conservation of this species should be included in the designation and why;
        (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in the critical habitat area we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change;
        (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of these species and why; and
        (e) Means to quantify the amount of natural and human-caused disturbance this species prefers or can tolerate.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle and proposed critical habitat.
        (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        (7) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
        (8) Information on the extent to which the description of potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        (9) Whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that will likely occur if we designate critical habitat.
        (10) Whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect of regional costs associated with land use controls that may result from the designation of critical habitat.
        (11) Whether the DEA identifies all Federal, State, and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed designation of critical habitat, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked.
        (12) Whether the Draft EA adequately presents the purpose of and need for the proposed action, the proposed action and alternatives, and the evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives.
        (13) Whether the amended Conservation Agreement for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle provides sufficient conservation measures to reduce threats to the species.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule or the associated DEA and draft EA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, DEA, and Draft EA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053 and Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed critical habitat, the DEA, the Conservation Agreement amendment, and the Draft EA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053 and Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020, or at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/invertebrates/CoralPinkSandDunesTigerBeetle/index.html, or by mail from the Utah Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background
        Previous Federal Actions

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle and our consideration of the Conservation Agreement amendment relative to the proposed listing rule. For more information on previous Federal actions and the biology of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, refer to the proposed listing rule and proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60208), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0053 or Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020).
        In total, we proposed approximately 921 hectares (ha) (2,276 acres (ac)) in Kane County, Utah, for designation as critical habitat in our October 2, 2012, proposed rule. However, the 2012 Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle surveys found beetle adults and larvae in habitat adjacent to the proposed critical habitat area (Knisley and Gowan 2013, pp. 12-13). Therefore, based on the availability of this new information, we request that the public review this data and provide input on how it might be considered for the designation of critical habitat (see 2012 Survey Information, below).

        The original proposal had a 60-day public comment period, ending November 16, 2012. We will publish in the Federal Register a final listing decision and final critical habitat designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle on or before the statutory deadline of October 2, 2013.
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 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 geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made 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 that affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Our October 2, 2012, proposed rule evaluated the 2009 Conservation Agreement for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. The 2009 Conservation Agreement resulted in the establishment of two Conservation Areas that protect the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle from off-road vehicle use. Based on new survey information, we have worked with the State of Utah and Bureau of Land Management to amend the 2009 Conservation Agreement and expand the protected habitats for the species (see Conservation Agreement Amendment, below). We are seeking public comment on this amendment, including whether it provides sufficient conservation measures to reduce threats to the species to the point it does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        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 impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 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.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that the area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from the designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan.
        In the case of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, the benefits of critical habitat designation include public awareness of the presence of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal action exists, increased habitat protection for these species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal action occur primarily on Federal lands or for projects implemented, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies.

        The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a DEA concerning the economic effects of the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
        Draft Economic Analysis
        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. The DEA also describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. Some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether or not we designate critical habitat.

        The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks at baseline impacts incurred as a result of the species listing, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.

        In light of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the DEA also considers the coextensive cost impacts of the critical habitat's protection. Coextensive impacts include the baseline impacts, which are a result of the listing, and incremental impacts, which are solely attributable to the designation of critical habitat.
        The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because planning information was available for most activities to reasonably forecast activity levels for projects for a 20-year timeframe. The DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are the costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of conservation efforts for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Bureau of Land Management Kanab Field Office Resource Management Plan administration; (2) off-road vehicle (ORV) related consumer surplus losses (i.e., economic measure of consumer satisfaction—ORV restrictions might result in some consumers feeling like they were not receiving sufficient recreational enjoyment for the expenses of traveling to and staying in the area); (3) consultation on a Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park incidental take permit; (4) other management activities; and (5) conservation activities.
        The proposed critical habitat designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle will result in minimal incremental costs because the proposed critical habitat is occupied by the species or likely used as a dispersal corridor between occupied habitats and we would expect costs beyond those attributable to the species listing (baseline costs) to be minimal (see discussion below). Furthermore, the baseline protections afforded by existing conservation activities partially address ORV use, which is one of the primary threats to the species and its habitat (77 FR 60208). Table 1 summarizes the coextensive economic impacts of the proposed listing and critical habitat.

        Coextensive impacts to economic activities are anticipated to be associated primarily with the administrative costs of Section 7 consultations, development of incidental take permits, and consumer surplus losses from anticipated ORV restrictions in the Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park. The cost of these impacts is estimated to be approximately $225,298 over the next 20 years, at an annualized cost of $13,416. Costs associated with conservation activities that are indirectly attributable to the listing are projected to be $538,441 (Table 1). In addition, ORV visitors to BLM land adjacent to the State Park would potentially lose consumer surplus, but these costs are unquantified because of a lack of reliable visitation data. Additional information can be found in the DEA, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020 and at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/invertebrates/CoralPinkSandDunesTigerBeetle/index.html.

          Table 1—Summary of Coextensive Impacts to Economic Activities Over the Next 20 Years (Including a 7 Percent Discount Rate) Pertaining to Critical Habitat Designation for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle

            Economic activities
            Reinitiation of BLM RMP
            OHV-Related consumersurplus losses

            State parkincidental
              take permit

            Othermanagement
              activities

            Conservation activities
            Totalcoextensive

            Undiscounted
            $29,655
            $275,698
            $2,263
            $73,000
            $950,000
            $1,330,616

            Net Present Vaule @ 7%
            25,400
            156,260

              a 2,263
            41,375
            538,441
            763,738

            Average Annual Discounted Cost
            1,270
            7,813

              a 2,263
            2,069
            26,922
            40,337

            a Undiscounted because the action is expected to take place in 2013.

        Incremental costs associated with the designation of critical habitat are expected to be minimal. Designation of critical habitat for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle is not likely to result in additional consultations since the proposed designated critical habitat unit is occupied. Therefore, actions that would affect critical habitat would also affect the species present in the occupied Unit of critical habitat. However, the designation of critical habitat would result in direct incremental administrative costs to address adverse modification analyses, although these would be minimal. With no critical habitat designated outside the Coral Pink Sand Dunes habitat range, all indirect conservation costs or benefits are considered part of the baseline. No additional project modifications are expected relative to the baseline. Costs associated with reinitiating consultations will also be considered part of the baseline.

        We are seeking data and comments from the public on the DEA. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public 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, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Draft Environmental Assessment; National Environmental Policy Act

        When the range of a species includes States within the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to the ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F .3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will complete an analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) on critical habitat designations. The range of Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle is entirely within the State of Utah, which is within the Tenth Circuit.
        The Draft EA presents the purpose of and need for critical habitat designation, the proposed action and alternatives, and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives under the requirements of NEPA as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 through 1518) and according to the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures.

        The Draft EA will be used by the Service to decide whether or not critical habitat will be designated as proposed; if the proposed action requires refinement, or if another alternative is appropriate; or if further analyses are needed through preparation of an environmental impact statement. If the proposed action is selected as described (or is changed minimally) and no further environmental analyses are needed, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the appropriate conclusion of this process. A FONSI would then be prepared for the environmental assessment. We are seeking data and comments from the public on the draft EA, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020 and at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/invertebrates/CoralPinkSandDunesTigerBeetle/index.html.

        2012 Survey Information

        A survey for Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle was conducted south of Conservation Area A in 2012, and we request that the public review this data and provide input on how it is considered for the designation of critical habitat (Knisley and Gowan 2013, entire). Researchers found a total of 16 adults and 13 larvae singly or in small numbers throughout the area directly south of Conservation Area A (Knisley and Gowan 2013, pp. 12-13). Large numbers of adult tiger beetles were also found in this area in earlier years (1998-2000) (Knisley and Gowan 2013, pp. 12-13), but this area was not included in our October 2, 2012, proposed critical habitat designation because beetles were generally not observed there for a decade. As described in our October 2, 2012, proposed rule, the area supports the following primary constituent elements: (1) Elevations from 5,610 to 6,857 feet (1,710 to 2,090 meters); (2) appropriate levels of moisture and compaction to allow for burrowing (greater than 3 percent); and (3) vegetative cover of 23-57 percent that allows for ovipositing, adult thermoregulation, and abundant prey (77 FR 60208). Portions of this area are also included in the Conservation Agreement amendment (see Conservation Agreement Amendment, below). We seek comments from the public on the survey results, which are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0020 and at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/invertebrates/CoralPinkSandDunesTigerBeetle/index.html.

        Conservation Agreement Amendment
        Initially formalized in 1997 (Conservation Committee 1997, entire), and revised in 2009 (Conservation Committee 2009, entire), the Conservation Agreement for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle is a partnership for the development and implementation of conservation measures to protect the tiger beetle and its habitat. The purpose of the partnership is to ensure the long-term persistence of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle within its historical range and provide a framework for future conservation efforts. The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Kane County, Utah, are signatories to these agreements and comprise the conservation committee. The conservation committee has implemented conservation actions to benefit the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle and its habitat, monitored their effectiveness, and adapted strategies as new information became available. Coordination under the Conservation Agreement resulted in the establishment of two Conservation Areas that protect the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle from ORV use—Conservation Areas A and B (see our proposed rule (77 FR 60208, October 2, 2012) for more information on these Conservation Areas).

        On March 21, 2013, signatories to the Conservation Agreement signed an amendment (Amendment to the 2009 Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (Cicindela albissima)) (Conservation Committee 2013, entire) to the 2009 Conservation Agreement that outlines several new conservation actions that will be enacted to address the threats that were identified in the October 2, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60208). The amendment evaluates the most recent tiger beetle survey information (Knisley and Gowan 2013, entire; see 2012 Survey Information, above) and concludes that modifications to the boundaries of the Conservation Areas are needed to ensure continued protection of the tiger beetle from ongoing threats (see below description of threats). The amendment enlarges Conservation Area A by 29 percent from 84 to 108 ha (207 to 266 ac). The expansion of Conservation Area A protects 88 percent of the species' population from ORV use. In addition, the amendment provides protection for islands of habitat between Conservation Areas A and B (an additional 106 ha (263 ac)), with the intent of providing dispersal habitat for the species.

        Overall, the Conservation Agreement amendment addresses the following threats to the Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle: (1) Habitat loss and degradation caused by off-road vehicle use; (2) small population effects, such as vulnerability to random chance events; (3) the effects of climate change and drought; and (4) cumulative interaction of individual factors such as off-road vehicle use, climate change, and drought (77 FR 60208, October 2, 2012) (Table 3). Additional information can be found in the Conservation Agreement amendment, which can be obtained as specified at the beginning of this document (see ADDRESSES:
          Document Availability).

          Table 2—Threats to the Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle as Identified in the October 2, 2012, Proposed Listing Decision and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat, and Planned Actions to Address Those Threats Through the Conservation Agreement and Strategy Amendment

            Threat
            Planned action

            Habitat loss/degradation and mortality associated with ORV use
            • Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation agrees to expand the boundary of Conservation Area A to protect additional habitat while addressing diversity in recreation and maintaining safety standards for dune visitors. This area will be expanded in the 2013 field season from 84 to 108 ha (207 to 266 ac), thus increasing protection of tiger beetle occupied swales from 48 percent to 88 percent. All new or expanded habitat areas will be demarcated with carsonite marking posts to facilitate compliance by Park visitors.

            • Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation and the BLM will protect vegetated habitat islands of connectivity between the southern and northern conservation areas and monitor to ensure compliance. This action will occur in 2013 and will protect 106 ha (263 ac) of additional sand dune habitat comprising 14 individual habitat patches, which range in size from 1 to 15 ha (2.6 to 37 ac). All new or expanded habitat areas will be demarcated with carsonite marking posts to facilitate compliance by Park visitors.

            • Tiger beetle adults and larvae were found to the south of Conservation Area A in 2012. The conservation committee will visit this area in spring of 2013 to determine any additional habitats that should be protected to support the tiger beetle. The size and configuration of any protected areas will be determined during the 2013 field season with input from all members of the conservation committee. All new or expanded habitat areas will be demarcated with carsonite posts to facilitate compliance by Park visitors.

            • The conservation committee will analyze available historic aerial imagery and other data to better understand dune movement and associated vegetation changes as they relate to beetle occupation and suitable habitat over time. Knowledge of dune movement patterns will be used in adaptive management planning to accommodate dune changes and the need to alter conservation area boundaries.

            • The conservation committee will conduct experimental vegetation treatments within existing conservation areas to determine if this activity could be an effective mechanism to increase suitable habitat.

            • The conservation committee will revisit conservation area boundaries on a routine cycle (every 3 years) and make necessary adjustments as a result of shifting dunes, vegetation changes, population increases and decreases, and resulting changes to suitable habitat.

            • Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation and the BLM will continue efforts in law enforcement, education, and outreach.

            Vulnerability to stochastic events due to small population size
            • We are not aware of any additional populations of Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetles outside of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes geologic feature. However, the conservation committee believes it is appropriate to continue surveys for the species and suitable habitat in the area. The conservation committee will identify potential habitat within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Coral Pink Sand Dunes using aerial imagery, and survey for tiger beetle presence and habitat suitability. If appropriate habitat is found, the area will be considered for experimental introduction.

            • The conservation committee will increase research efforts in experimental translocations in Conservation Area B and evaluate new habitat islands for appropriateness for reintroduction efforts.

            • The conservation committee will introduce individuals into suitable habitats (potential sites have been identified), monitor these sites, and revise translocation activities via an adaptive management process.

            Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
            • The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation and the BLM have done a creditable job of enforcing the protection boundaries of Conservation Areas A and B for approximately the last 15 years. This amendment increases the size of Conservation Area A by 24 ha (59 ac), and the conservation committee will consider further protection of habitats to the south of Conservation Area A (see Habitat loss/degradation and mortality associated with ORV use, above). In addition, the amendment establishes 14 habitat patches to support dispersal of tiger beetles between Conservation Areas A and B, increasing the total protected area by an additional 106 ha (263 ac). Because these signatory agencies have complied with the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the last 15 years, we can reasonably conclude that the BLM and Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation will continue to properly enforce the boundaries of all protected areas.

            Climate change and drought
            • The BLM is installing a weather station onsite in spring 2013 to better correlate weather patterns with beetle abundance. Understanding the effects of weather patterns on Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle populations may help us develop adaptive management strategies by identifying important habitat use areas during particularly warm or dry years.

            • The establishment of 14 additional habitat patches totaling 106 ha (263 ac) will occur at higher elevations in the sand dune area, and at locations that provide significant vegetated habitat. This effort has the potential to offset the drying and warming effects of climate change and drought on Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle habitat. In addition these habitat patches will provide dispersal habitat and connectivity between Conservation Areas A and B, which will better allow the tiger beetle to disperse to potentially cooler and wetter habitat that occurs in Conservation Area B.

            Cumulative effects of the above
            • Addressing the threats listed above independently will prevent these threats from acting cumulatively.

        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our October 2, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60208), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders (EOs) until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data in making these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act, E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988 (Clarity of the Rule), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), whenever an agency must 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 effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
        According to the Small Business Administration, 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 the rule, as well as the 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.
        A significant economic impact threshold is generally a 3 percent impact as measured by appropriate quantitative metrics, such as annualized cost of compliance as a percentage of sales, government revenue, or annual operating expenditures. In general, if more than 20 percent of the affected small entities experience a significant economic impact, then there is considered to be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared.
        For there to be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities associated with designating critical habitat, then the incremental direct compliance costs must exceed the 3 percent threshold for more than 20 percent of the affected small entities. Since the Service, BLM, and Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park are the only entities with expected direct compliance costs and are not considered small entities, this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        However, small entities, such as Kane County, ORV tour and rental businesses, and other local tourism-related businesses, may be indirectly affected as a result of the proposed listing and critical habitat designation. Because motorized visitors to the dunes may be further restricted access in the dune area than under the current boundaries, ORV use and rentals may be displaced or reduced, impacting the ORV rental entities and any businesses the visitors might frequent as part of their overall trip.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
        E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget's guidance for implementing this Executive order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to no regulatory action. Critical habitat designation for Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle is not anticipated to affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Therefore, designation of critical habitat is not expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in oil and natural gas production or distribution), and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

        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. First, it excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” Second, it 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. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, 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 on to State governments.
        (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle, we do not believe that the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts may occur due to project modifications and administrative costs of consultation that may need to be made for grazing, maintenance, and recreational activities; however, these are not expected to affect small governments to the extent described above. Consequently, we do not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Utah Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Utah Ecological Services Office.

          Dated: April 26, 2013.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2013-10568 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [R06-OAR-2004-TX-0014; FRL-7896-3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Rules for the Control of Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds in the Houston/Galveston (HGA) Ozone Nonattainment Area

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing to approve rules adopted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for the control of highly reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOCs) in the Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area. These rules for the control of HRVOCs supplement Texas' existing rules for controlling volatile organic compounds (VOC) by providing more extensive requirements for certain equipment in HRVOC service. These additional controls of HRVOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone in HGA. Inhaling even low levels of ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pains, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and congestion. It can also worsen bronchitis, asthma and reduce lung capacity.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R06-OAR-2004-TX-0014, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional Material in EDocket (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Once in the system, select “quick search,” then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments.
          • E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at diggs.thomas@epa.gov. Please also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
          • Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
          • Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
          • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R06-OAR-2004-TX-0014. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public file without change, and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through Regional Material in EDocket (RME), regulations.gov, or e-mail if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The EPA RME website and the Federal regulations.gov are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public file 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. Guidance on preparing comments is given in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document under the General Information heading.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the Regional Material in EDocket (RME) index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 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 RME or in the official file which is available at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
          The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:
          Texas Commission on Environmental Quailty, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7242; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address donaldson.guy@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
        What Action Are We Taking?
        We are proposing to approve portions of revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Texas in letters dated January 23, 2003, November 7, 2003, March 26, 2004, and December 17, 2004. We are approving the portions of these revisions that pertain to the control of HRVOCs. These rules, which are codified at 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter H, apply to facilities in the Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area. We are also proposing to approve the associated revisions to the definitions section of 30 Texas  Administrative Code (TAC) 115.10. We are not proposing any action, at this time, regarding the other revisions that were submitted in these letters. We are approving these additional rules pursuant to sections 110, 116 and part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act).
        What General Requirements Do the Rules Establish?
        The rules establish improved monitoring requirements for flares, cooling towers, process vents and pressure relief valves. For sources in Harris county, the source monitoring provides the information necessary for sources to demonstrate compliance with annual and short term caps on emissions of HRVOCs from cooling tower, process vents, pressure relief devices and flares. The annual cap for each facility will be established based on processes outlined in 30 TAC chapter 101. The short term cap is 1200 lbs/hr.
        Because of the difficulty in their quantification, fugitive emissions are not included in the long and short term cap. Instead, the current work practice rules have been made more comprehensive and more stringent to achieve additional reduction in HRVOCs.
        Why Are We Approving These Rules?
        The addition of these rules for the control of HRVOCs will supplement Texas' existing rules controlling volatile organic compounds (VOC) and provide improvements to the Texas SIP's VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules. These additional controls of HRVOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone in HGA. Today's proposal, when finally approved, will make the revised regulations Federally enforceable.
        What Are Highly Reactive VOCs?
        First, Volatile Organic Compounds are a class of compounds that react in the atmosphere with oxides of nitrogen and oxygen in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. HRVOC is a term used to refer to chemicals that because of their very high propensity to form ozone have been targeted for additional control beyond the level of control that has been established for controlling VOCs in general. These HRVOCs have been found to contribute a disproportionate amount to the formation of ozone in the HGA. Further, ambient measurements from both airplanes and ground based monitors have shown that current emissions estimates for HRVOCs are substantially underestimated. Therefore, there is a need to improve the emissions estimates of HRVOCs through better source monitoring.
        HRVOCs have been defined in chapter 115.10 as:

        In Harris County, one or more of the following volatile organic compounds (VOCs): 1,3-butadiene; all isomers of butene (e.g., isobutene (2-methylpropene or isobutylene), alpha-butylene (ethylethylene), and beta-butylene (dimethylethylene, including both cis- and trans-isomers)); ethylene; and propylene.
        In Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties, one or more of the following VOCs: ethylene and propylene.
        What Processes Will Be Impacted by These Rules?

        TCEQ has targeted the following emission sources with these rules: Flares, process vents, cooling tower heat exchange systems and fugitive emissions. These sources are believed to generate the greatest amount of HRVOC emissions. Also, flares, cooling towers and fugitive emissions are believed to suffer the greatest error in reported emissions. The improved source monitoring requirements included in the rules will greatly enhance the accuracy of the source emissions estimates.
        What Are the Requirements for Flares?
        Flares are used in a wide variety of applications both for the control of continuous vent emissions and for the control of intermittent emissions during start up, shutdowns and malfunctions. The ability of flares to safely handle a wide range of flow rates and chemicals makes them a popular choice for vent gas disposal. Because flares are not enclosed combustion devices, it is extremely difficult to measure the exhaust emissions from flares. EPA has established requirements for the proper operation of flares for its New Source Performance Standards at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.18. Texas has adopted, by reference, these performance requirements for flares in HRVOC service. The requirements establish limits for the minimum heating value for the inlet gas to a flare and for maximum gas velocity at the flare tip.
        In addition, the Texas rules establish flow and composition monitoring requirements for flares that facilities will use to show compliance with the flare operation requirements of 40 CFR 60.18. Also, using the flow data and an assumed destruction efficiency for a properly operated flare, a company can estimate the HRVOC emission rate to be used for determining compliance with the short and long term caps. Flares in compliance with 40 CFR 60.18 are allowed to assume a 98% destruction efficiency for most VOCs and a 99% destruction efficiency for ethylene and propylene. Flares not operated in compliance with 40 CFR 60.18 are required to assume a destruction efficiency of 93%. Texas has based these assumed destruction efficiencies on EPA studies of flare destruction efficiencies.
        For flares that are used as a continuous control device, the monitoring requirements call for continuous flow and hydrocarbon monitoring of the streams being sent to the flare. For flares that are used more intermittently such as flares for control of loading operations, emergency flares or flares used only for control during start up/shutdown and maintenance, the Texas rules allow various alternative practices that are described in the rule. We have reviewed the monitoring requirements for flares and believe they will be adequate to establish compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18, the annual cap and the short term cap. For a more complete description of the requirements, see the technical support document for this action available in the RME.
        What Are the Monitoring Requirements for Cooling Towers?
        Facilities are required to continuously monitor the flow and concentration of VOCs to cooling towers. The samples must be collected before the water comes in contact with the atmosphere and must be taken in a location that insures the rate all of the HRVOCs going into the cooling tower is measured. Streams containing only non-highly reactive VOCs are not required to be sampled. If the concentration in the stream exceeds 50ppb total VOCs, the company is required to collect an additional sample to determine speciated and total HRVOC. These additional samples must be taken each day until the concentration of strippable VOC is reduced below 50 ppb. Cooling towers with capacities less than 8000 gallons/minute are required to monitor flow continuously, but only have to take samples at least twice per week with an interval of at least 48 hours between samples.
        EPA has reviewed the monitoring requirements for cooling tower heat exchange systems and believes them sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the annual and short term cap. For a more complete description of the cooling tower requirements, see the technical support document for this action available in the RME.
        What Are the Monitoring Requirements for Process Vents?
        For process vents, facilities are required to establish a maximum potential emission rate using a performance test. During the performance test, a process parameter or parameters is to be identified that is affected by the emission rate from the process vent. The performance test must establish an operational limit for the process parameter(s). For every hour the process parameter(s) remains within it its operational limit, a facility would report the maximum potential emission rate for determining compliance with the annual and short term cap. Instead of assuming the maximum potential emission rate, sources have the option of installing continuous emission monitors and flow monitors to directly determine emissions. During time periods when the process parameter is outside the operational limit, companies must use engineering estimates and process information to determine emissions for compliance with the annual and short term caps. Texas has made clear that time periods outside the operational limits are violations of the rule. We have reviewed the monitoring requirements for vents and believe that they will provide sufficient information to determine compliance with the annual and short term caps. For a more complete description of the process vent requirements, see the technical support document for this action available in the RME.
        What Is the Short Term Cap?
        As mentioned previously, these rules establish a limit of 1200 lbs/hr of HRVOCs in Harris County. This limit has been established because recent modeling information indicates that releases of this magnitude in the right place at the right time can impact peak ozone levels 1-2 parts per billion.
        What Are the Monitoring Requirements for Fugitive Emissions?
        TCEQ, for a number of years, has implemented a leak detection and repair program as part of its program to control volatile organic compounds. When TCEQ determined that additional reductions of HRVOCs were needed, they established a number of new requirements for their leak detection and repair. These include among other things:
        • Inclusion of connectors in the program.
        • Inclusion of other non-traditional potential leak sources such as heat exchanger heads and man way covers.
        • Elimination of allowances for skipping leak detection periods for valves.
        • Requirement for third party audits to help insure that effective leak survey and repairs are conducted.
        • Requirement that “extra-ordinary” efforts be used to repair valves before putting them on the delay of repair list.
        EPA has reviewed the additional requirements for control of HRVOC fugitive emissions and determined these measures will result in additional emission reductions of HRVOCs.

          Final Action: EPA is proposing to approve for inclusion in the federally enforceable State Implementation Plan the rules contained in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter H for the control of HRVOCs, first submitted in a letter dated January 23, 2003 and revised in letters dated November 7, 2003, March 26, 2004 and December 17, 2004. We are also approving revisions to the definition section in the State Rules 30 TAC 115.10 as the definitions are necessary for the implementation of the rules. We are proposing to approve these rules because they strengthen the State Implementation Plan by improving monitoring requirements and reducing emissions of HRVOCs in the Houston area. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions to the HGA SIP under part D of the Act because they supplement and improve the existing SIP-approved VOC rules and they are consistent with the RACT requirements and guidance for ozone nonattainment areas. Reductions achieved by these rules will contribute to attainment of the ozone standard.
        Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

        This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: March 24, 2005.
          Lawrence Starfield,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 05-6944 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 170630613-8489-01]
        RIN 0648-BH02
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is correcting a proposed rule that published on June 6, 2018, that would limit access to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Trawl Limited Access Sector (TLAS) yellowfin sole directed fishery by vessels that deliver their catch of yellowfin sole to motherships for processing. Two paragraphs in the preamble and two tables in the proposed regulatory text contained errors.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before July 6, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0083, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0083, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 116 and the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) may be obtained from www.regulations.gov. Electronic copies of Amendments 80 and 39 to the BSAI FMP, and the Environmental Assessments/Regulatory Impact Reviews prepared for those actions also may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-5806.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bridget Mansfield, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 116 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26237). If approved, Amendment 116 would limit access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by vessels that deliver their catch of yellowfin sole to motherships for processing. This proposed rule would (1) establish eligibility criteria based on historical participation in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, (2) issue an endorsement to those groundfish License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses that meet the eligibility criteria, and (3) authorize delivery of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to motherships by only those vessels designated on a groundfish LLP license that is endorsed for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The public comment period for the proposed rule ends on July 6, 2018.
        Need for Correction
        Proposed Table 52 in the proposed rule incorrectly identifies the groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landings and receive an endorsement that allows catcher vessels to deliver BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to a mothership. Proposed Table 53 incorrectly identifies the groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible for, but would not be credited with, qualifying landings and thus would not receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole catcher vessel directed fishery endorsement to deliver to a mothership until notification from the vessel owner is received by NMFS. Two paragraphs in the preamble to the proposed rule that describe these eligible groundfish LLP licenses incorrectly identified the number of groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landings and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole catcher vessel directed fishery endorsement. These corrections are necessary because the proposed rule, if approved as published, would result in a total of seven groundfish LLP licenses that would receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. However, NMFS has determined that a total of eight groundfish LLP licenses would receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.
        Based on the information provided in the analysis and the official record, NMFS has determined that 10 groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landing(s) and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. Six of these groundfish LLP licenses, rather than two as published in the proposed rule on June 6, 2018, would be immediately eligible to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive the endorsement (groundfish LLP licenses 3741, 3944, 2913, 1667, 3714, and 1820). Therefore, under this proposed rule, those six groundfish LLP licenses would be credited with a qualifying landing and receive a BSAI TLAS directed fishery endorsement. The remaining four eligible groundfish LLP licenses (groundfish LLP licenses 3838, 2702, 3902, and 3826), rather than eight as published in the proposed rule on June 6, 2018, were each one of two groundfish LLP licenses designated on a vessel that made qualifying landings during the qualifying period; therefore, those four groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement. For any of those four groundfish LLP licenses to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement, the vessel owner would be required to select one groundfish LLP license that NMFS is to credit with all qualifying landings made by that vessel. Up to two of those four groundfish LLP licenses could be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement from NMFS. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that a total of eight groundfish LLP licenses could receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under the proposed rule, resulting in up to eight vessels that could participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver their catch to a mothership.
        Correction
        In the proposed rule, published on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26237), the following corrections are made:
        1. On page 26245, beginning in column 2, the last paragraph is corrected to read as follows:

        Based on the information provided in the Analysis and the official record, NMFS has determined that ten groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landing(s) and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. Six of these were the sole groundfish LLP license designated on a vessel in a given year during the qualifying period, for those vessels that made a qualifying landing. Therefore, under this proposed rule, those six groundfish LLP licenses would be credited with a qualifying landing and receive a BSAI TLAS directed fishery endorsement. The remaining four eligible groundfish LLP licenses were each one of two groundfish LLP licenses designated on a vessel that made qualifying landings during the qualifying period; therefore, those four groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement. For any of those four groundfish LLP licenses to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement, the vessel owner would be required to select one groundfish LLP license that NMFS is to credit with all qualifying landings made by that vessel. Up to two of those four groundfish LLP licenses could be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement from NMFS. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that a total of eight groundfish LLP licenses could receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under the proposed rule, resulting in up to eight vessels that could participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver their catch to a mothership.
        2. On page 26246, beginning in column 2, the last paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
        Based on the official record, NMFS has identified ten groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landings. Six of these eligible groundfish LLP licenses were the sole groundfish LLP license on which a given vessel was designated at the time the vessel made qualifying landings of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole. Therefore, NMFS would credit these six groundfish LLP licenses with the qualifying landings under this proposed rule. NMFS proposes to list these six groundfish LLP licenses in Table 52 to part 679. The remaining four eligible groundfish LLP licenses were not the sole groundfish LLP license on which a given vessel was designated at the time the vessel made at least one trip target in the BSAI TLAS fishery during the qualifying period. Because this proposed rule would require in such cases that the vessel owner specify one groundfish LLP license to receive credit with the qualified landing(s) made by that vessel, NMFS would not be able to credit these groundfish LLP licenses until NMFS receives notification from the vessel owner which groundfish LLP license should be credited with the qualifying landing(s). NMFS proposes to list in Table 53 to part 679 the four groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible for, but would not be credited with, qualifying landings until notification from the vessel owner is received by NMFS. The proposed notification process is described in the following section.
        3. On page 26251, column 2, is corrected to correctly identify the groundfish LLP licenses that are eligible to be assigned an endorsement for the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector yellowfin sole fishery.
        Table 52 is corrected and reprinted in its entirety to read as follows:

          Table 52 to Part 679—Groundfish LLP Licenses Eligible for a BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector Yellowfin Sole Directed Fishery Endorsement
          [X indicates that Column A applies]

            Column A
            Column B

            The Holder of Groundfish License No.
            Is eligible Under 50 CFR 679.4(k)(14)(ii) to be assigned an Endorsement for the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector Yellowfin Sole Fishery

            LLG 3944
            X

            LLG 2913
            X

            LLG 1667
            X

            LLG 3714
            X

            LLG 1820
            X

            LLG 3741
            X

        4. On page 26251, column 3, is corrected to correctly identify the groundfish LLP licenses that require qualified landings assignment to be eligible for a BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.
        Table 53 is corrected and reprinted in its entirety to read as follows:

          Table 53 to Part 679—Groundfish LLP Licenses that Require Qualified Landings Assignment To Be Eligible for a BSAT Trawl Limited Access Sector Yellowfin Sole Directed Fishery Endorsement
          [X indicates that Column A applies]

            Column A
            Column B

            A single vessel was designated on the following pairs of groundfish LLP licenses during the qualifying period identified in 50 CFR 679.4(k)(14)(ii)(A)(1)

            The owner of the vessel designated on the pair of LLP licenses in Column A must notify NMFS which LLP license from each pair in Column A is to be credited with qualifying landing(s) under 50 CFR 679.4(k)(14)(vi)(2).

            LLG 3838 and LLG 2702
            X

            LLG 3902 and LLG 3826
            X

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

          Dated: June 15, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-13249 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P