        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0469; FRL-10005-95-Region 3]

        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Regulatory Updates to Allegheny County Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), on May 23, 2019. This revision pertains to ACHD's amendments of the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control) to implement Federal nonattainment new source review (NNSR) provisions for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 6, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0469 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to opila.marycate@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Amy Johansen, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2156. Ms. Johansen can also be reached via electronic mail at johnasen.amy@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On May 23, 2019, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania formally submitted, on behalf of ACHD, a SIP revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. This SIP revision amends ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control), sections 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area), and 2101.20 (Definitions), herein referred to as Revision 90A. This proposed SIP revision establishes that emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia are precursors to PM2.5 for new and modified major sources emitting PM2.5 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; establishes a significant impact level for PM2.5; proposes emission offset ratios for emissions of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors; and amends relevant definitions. Revision 90A was adopted by ACHD and became effective March 3, 2019.1

            1 On April 22, 2019, ACHD submitted a “revised” requested revision to the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (PADEP). This revised submittal was necessary due to its initial submittal to EPA, on March 6, 2019, having a typographical error. The offset ratio for VOC in Article XXI, section 2102.06.3.B.4 was printed as “1.1” when, instead, it should have been printed as “1:1.” ACHD corrected the typographical error and published a new Notice of Amendment in the local newspaper describing the error, prior to formally resubmitting it to PADEP on April 22, 2019 and to EPA on May 23, 2019.

        For more information related to EPA's proposed approval of SIP Revision 90A, please refer to EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD), located in Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0469 at https://www.regulations.gov.

        I. Background
        A. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

        Airborne particulate matter with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less are considered to be “fine particles,” and are also known as PM2.5. Fine particles in the atmosphere are made up of a complex mixture of components, including sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, elemental carbon, organic compounds, and inorganic material. There are substantial health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 emissions. Epidemiological studies have shown a significant correlation between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.
        EPA has revised the NAAQS for PM2.5 on multiple occasions, most recently in 2012. On December 14, 2012, the annual primary standard for PM2.5 was lowered from 15 micrograms per meter cubed (μg/m3) to 12 μg/m3. See 78 FR 3087 (January 15, 2013). The existing 24-hour standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. Upon promulgation of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA formally classified all of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania as moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard. See 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
        B. Purpose of SIP Revision 90A
        For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review.” See CAA section 172(c)(5).

        ACHD's Revision 90A revises NNSR permit requirements for major sources of PM2.5. Specifically, ACHD's Article XXI has been amended to implement additional provisions pertaining to PM2.5 precursors, as promulgated in EPA's rule entitled Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (2016 Implementation Rule). See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).

        As required by EPA's 2016 Implementation Rule, which implements the D.C. Circuit court's January 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA,
          2
           areas classified as nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS are required to comply with the parts of CAA subpart 4 section 189(e) 3
           that require the control of major sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the court decision, PM2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” The 2016 Implementation Rule amended the definitions of (1) regulated NSR pollutant with regard to PM2.5 precursors; (2) major stationary source with regard to major sources locating in PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as moderate and serious; and (3) significant with regard to emissions of PM2.5 precursors.

            2 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

            3 This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).

        C. EPA's Findings of Failure To Submit

        On April 6, 2018, EPA issued its final Findings of Failure to Submit (Findings) to three states, which included Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. See 83 FR 14759. In its Findings, EPA found that Allegheny County failed to submit a timely revision to their SIP as required to satisfy CAA requirements for implementation of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's Findings apply to states with overdue SIP revisions for areas initially designated as nonattainment and classified as moderate for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on April 15, 2015.
        Specific to this rulemaking action is ACHD's failure to submit revisions to its NNSR requirements. ACHD was required to submit its NNSR SIP revision to EPA for approval by October 15, 2016. See 83 FR 14759 (April 6, 2018). ACHD did not meet this deadline, hence EPA's issuance of its April 6, 2018 Findings, which became effective as of May 7, 2018. As a result of EPA's Findings, ACHD was given 18 months after the effective date of EPA's Findings to submit all applicable moderate area requirements or the imposition of sanctions would occur for the affected moderate nonattainment area, the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area.4

            4 EPA's April 6, 2018 Findings became effective on May 7, 2018, therefore, the 18-month sanctions clock for ACHD to submit its NNSR SIP revision ended on November 7, 2019.

        ACHD's Article XXI, section 2102.06 incorporates by reference the NNSR requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, subchapter E. However, because Pennsylvania's regulations (25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, subchapter E) do not contain the necessary 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS precursor specific provisions, ACHD cannot simply rely on them via incorporation by reference. Therefore, proposed SIP Revision 90A updates ACHD's regulations to include the required PM2.5 NNSR provisions in response to EPA's 2016 Implementation Rule requirements. See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016) and 40 CFR 51.165.
        With this proposed rulemaking action, ACHD has met its obligation under EPA's April 6, 2018 Findings to submit a NNSR SIP revision prior to November 7, 2019. See 83 FR 14759. On July 24, 2019, via letter, EPA deemed ACHD's May 23, 2019 SIP submittal administratively and technically complete, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, which in turn stopped the sanctions clock.5

            5 A copy of the completeness letter can be found in the Docket for this rulemaking action. Please see Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0469 at https://www.regulations.gov.

        II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
        A. Summary of SIP Revision
        ACHD's Board of Health adopted changes to sections 2102.06 and 2101.20 of Article XXI on January 9, 2019, which subsequently became effective on March 3, 2019. PADEP submitted SIP Revision 90A to EPA for inclusion in the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP on May 23, 2019, via the EPA State Planning electronic Collaboration System (SPeCS).

        PADEP is the Governor's designee for submitting official revisions of the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP to EPA, and ACHD is the local agency responsible for regulating and permitting the construction and modification of stationary sources within Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Article XXI contains Allegheny County's NNSR permit program applicable to new and modified major sources emitting PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.

        The Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP currently contains a version of Article XXI (Air Pollution Control) that was approved into the SIP on March 30, 2015. See 80 FR 16570.

        For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly referred to as NNSR. CAA 172(c)(5). Article XXI addresses NNSR permit requirements for major sources of PM2.5. ACHD's Revision 90A has been amended to implement additional provisions pertaining to precursors, as promulgated in EPA's final 2016 Implementation Rule.6

            6 See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).

        B. EPA's Analysis

        Under EPA's 2016 Implementation Rule, which implements the D.C. Circuit court's January 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA,
          7
           areas classified as nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS are required to comply with the parts of CAA subpart 4 section 189(e) 8

           that require the control of major stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the court decision, PM2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.” As mentioned previously, the 2016 Implementation Rule amended the definitions of (1) regulated NSR pollutant with regard to PM2.5 precursors; (2) major stationary source with regard to major sources locating in PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as moderate and serious; and (3) significant with regard to emissions of PM2.5 precursors. Article XXI is subject to these new regulatory requirements. Allegheny County is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.9

           The major source permitting threshold for a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area is 100 tons per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor, and 70 tpy for a serious PM2.5 nonattainment area.10

            7 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

            8 This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).

            9 On January 15, 2015, EPA designated all of Allegheny County as moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard. See 80 FR 2206.

            10 While Allegheny County has never been classified as a serious nonattainment area for any PM2.5 NAAQS, ACHD has revised Article XXI to include the lower emissions threshold of 70 tpy for direct PM2.5 and all four PM2.5 precursors.

        EPA evaluated the revised portions of Article XXI to determine if the revisions meet current applicable requirements for a PM2.5 NNSR permit program. Section 2102.06—(1) contains revisions to clarify that Article XXI applies to major polluting facilities that will emit PM2.5 or its precursors in areas designated as nonattainment for PM2.5; (2) the definition of “major facility” has been updated to include a 70 tpy emissions threshold for PM2.5 and all precursors to PM2.5; (3) the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” has been updated to include SO2, VOC, and ammonia in all PM2.5 nonattainment areas; (4) revisions were made to the definition of “significant” to include emission rates for PM2.5 at 10 tpy and emission rates for PM2.5 precursors as follows: 40 tpy of SO2, 40 tpy of VOC, 40 tpy of ammonia, and 40 tpy of NOX; and (5) revisions were made to clarify that under Article XXI, “significance level(s) shall mean “significant air quality impact” as defined under Article XXI. EPA finds these revisions approvable. Section 2102.06(b)(3)—Emission Offsets, establishes offset ratios for VOC and ammonia at a ratio of 1:1 for flue emissions and fugitive emissions in Allegheny County. EPA finds the addition of offset ratios to be approvable, as they match what is already in Article XXI for PM2.5 and NOX and SO2. Section 2101.20—Definitions, was amended to add “significant air quality impact” levels for PM2.5 at 0.2 µg/m3 for the annual averaging time and 1.2 µg/m3 for the 24 hour averaging time. ACHD's annual averaging time is more stringent than what EPA requires in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), therefore, EPA finds this more stringent requirement approvable.
        III. Proposed Action
        EPA's review of this material indicates that ACHD's May 23, 2019 SIP submittal is approvable and meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and are in accordance with CAA section 110. EPA is proposing to approve the May 23, 2019 submittal, which included revisions to ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control), sections 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area), and 2101.20 (Definitions), as a revision to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
        IV. Incorporation by Reference
        In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control), sections 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area), and 2101.20 (Definitions) discussed in Section II of this preamble.

        EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
        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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

        In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to NNSR requirements under the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

          Dated: February 21, 2020.
          Cosmo Servidio,
          Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2020-04456 Filed 3-4-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 060808213-6213-01; I.D. 073106C]
        RIN 0648-AU56
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2006 Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan and Agreement and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
           Framework Adjustment (FW) 42 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and FW 3 to the Monkfish FMP propose creation of the Georges Bank (GB) Cod Fixed Gear Sector (Fixed Gear Sector). If approved in FW 42/FW 3, the Fixed Gear Sector would be eligible for an annual allocation of up to 20 percent of the annual GB cod total allowable catch (TAC). Therefore, in accordance with the FMP, and pursuant to the anticipated approval of FW 42/FW 3, a representative of the Fixed Gear Sector submitted an Operations Plan, Sector Agreement (Contract), and Environmental Assessment (EA), and requested an allocation of GB cod to the Fixed Gear Sector for fishing year 2006 (FY 2006).
          The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that documents submitted by the Fixed Gear Sector comply with the procedural regulations regarding an annual Operations Plan and Sector Contract. This noticedocument provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed Sector Operations Plan and EA (prior to approval or disapproval of FW 42, which would authorize the formation of the Fixed Gear Sector), and prior to final approval or disapproval of the Sector Operations Plan and allocation of GB cod TAC to the Fixed Gear Sector for FY 2006. Comments regarding the formation of the Fixed Gear Sector (as opposed to the FY 2006 Operations Plan and Sector Contract, which are the subject of this proposed rule) should be submitted as described in the proposed rule for FW 42.

          DATES:
           Written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

           Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on GB Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan.” Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281-9135, or submitted via e-mail to: fixedgearsector@NOAA.gov, or the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          Copies of the Sector Agreement and the EA are available from the NE Regional Office at the mailing address specified above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

           Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9347, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail Thomas.Warren@NOAA.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Regional Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the Fixed Gear Sector Contract and Operations Plan is consistent with the goals of the FMP and other applicable law and is in compliance with the regulations governing the development and operation of a sector as specified under 50 CFR 648.87. The final rule implementing Amendment 13 (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) specified a process for the formation of sectors within the NE multispecies fishery and the allocation of TAC for specific groundfish species (or days-at-sea (DAS)), implemented restrictions that apply to all sectors, and authorized the first sector of the FMP (GB Cod Hook Sector).

        If FW 42/FW 3 are approved as proposed, the Fixed Gear Sector would be an approved sector, and the regulations that would apply to the Fixed Gear Sector specify that: (1) Aall vessels with a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the Sector, provided they have documented landings of GB cod through valid dealer reports submitted to NMFS of GB cod during FY 1996 through 2001 (regardless of gear fished); (2) membership in the Sector is voluntary, and each member would be required to remain in the Sector for the entire fishing year and could not fish outside the NE multispecies DAS program during the fishing year, unless certain conditions are met; (3) vessels fishing in the Sector (participating vessels) would be confined to fishing in the GB Cod Hook Sector Area, which is that portion of the GB cod stock area north of 39°00′ N. lat. and east of 71°40′ W. long; and (4) participating vessels would be required to comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, unless specifically exempted by a Letter of Authorization, and the provisions of an approved Operations Plan. This current regulations that apply to all sectors would also apply to the Fixed Gear Sector.
        Although FW 42/FW 3 would establish the Fixed Gear Sector, in order for GB cod to be allocated to the Fixed Gear Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector authorized to fish, the Fixed Gear Sector must submit an Operations Plan and Sector Contract to the Regional Administrator annually for approval. The Operations Plan and Sector Contract must contain certain elements, including a contract signed by all Sector participants and a plan containing the management rules that the Sector participants agree to abide by in order to avoid exceeding the allocated TAC. An additional analysis of the impacts of the Sector's proposed operations may be required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, the public must be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed Operations Plan and Sector Contract. The regulations require that, upon completion of the public comment period, the Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding approval of the Sector Contract and Operations Plan. If approved by the Regional Administrator, participating vessels would be authorized to fish under the terms of the Operations Plan and Sector Contract.
        In anticipation of approval of the Fixed Gear Sector in FW 42/FW 3, the Fixed Gear Sector submitted an initial version of the Operations Plan, Sector Contract, and EA to NMFS on February 1, 2006. On June 13, 2006, the Fixed Gear Sector submitted a revised version, after making modifications to the Operations Plan and EA, and submitted a final version on June 28, 2006.
        The Sector Agreement would be overseen by a Board of Directors and a Sector Manager. The Sector Agreement specifies, in accordance with Amendment 13, that the Sector's GB cod TAC would be based upon the number of Sector members and their historic landings of GB cod. The GB cod TAC is a “hard” TAC, meaning that, once the TAC is reached, Sector vessels could not fish under a DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species managed under the FMP (regulated species), or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations).
        As of June 28, 2006, two prospective Fixed Gear Sector members had signed the 2006 Sector Contract. The GB cod TAC calculation is based upon the historic cod landings of the participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels, using all gear. The allocation percentage is calculated by dividing the sum of total landings of GB cod by Sector members for FY 1996 through 2001, by the sum of the total accumulated landings of GB cod harvested by all NE multispecies vessels for the same time period (2,240,110 lb (1,016.1 mt)/ 113,278,842 lb (51,382.4 mt)). The resulting number is 1.98 percent. Based upon these two prospective Sector members, the Sector TAC of GB cod would be 121 mt (1.98 percent of the fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 6,132 mt). The fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 6,132 mt is less than the GB cod target TAC specified for 2006 (7,458 mt) because the 7,458 mt includes Canadian catch. That is, the fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 6,132 mt was calculated by subtracting the GB cod TAC specified for Canada under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding for FY 2006 (1,326 mt), from the overall GB cod target TAC of 7,458 mt specified by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) for FY 2006 (71 FR 25095, April 28, 2006). If prospective members of the Sector change their minds about participating in the Fixed Gear Sector after the publication of this notice and prior to a final decision by the Regional Administrator, it is possible that the total number of participants in the Sector and the TAC for the Sector may be reduced from the numbers above.
        The Fixed Gear Sector Agreement contains procedures for the enforcement of the Sector rules, a schedule of penalties, and provides the authority to the Fixed Gear Sector Manager to issue stop fishing orders to members of the Fixed Gear Sector. Participating vessels would be required to land fish only in designated landing ports and would be required to provide the Sector Manager with a copy of the Vessel Trip Report (VTR) within 48 hrhours of offloading. Dealers purchasing fish from participating vessels would be required to provide the Fixed Gear Sector Manager with a copy of the dealer report on a weekly basis. On a monthly basis, the Fixed Gear Sector Manager would transmit to NMFS a copy of the VTRs and the aggregate catch information from these reports. After 90 percent of the Fixed Gear Sector's allocation has been harvested, the Fixed Gear Sector Manager would be required to provide NMFS with aggregate reports on a weekly basis. A total of 1/12 of the Fixed Gear Sector's GB cod TAC, minus a reserve, would be allocated to each month of the fishing year. GB cod quota that is not landed during a given month would be rolled over into the following month. Once the aggregate monthly quota of GB cod is reached, for the remainder of the month, participating vessels could not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species, or use gear capable of catching regulated NE multispecies. Once the annual TAC of GB cod is reached, Fixed Gear Sector members could not fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species, or use gear capable of catching regulated NE multispecies for the rest of the fishing year. The harvest rules would not preclude vessels from fishing under the charter/party or recreational regulations, provided the vessel fishes under the applicable charter/party and recreational rules on separate trips. For each fishing trip, participating vessels would be required to fish under the NE multispecies DAS program to account for any incidental groundfish species that they may catch while fishing for GB cod. In addition, participating vessels would be required to call the Sector Manager prior to leaving port. There would be no trip limit for GB cod for participating vessels. All legal-sized cod caught would be retained and landed and counted against the Fixed Gear Sector's aggregate allocation. Participating vessels would not be allowed to fish with or have on board gear other than jigs, non-automated demersal longline, handgear, or sink gillnets, and participating Fixed Gear Sector vessels fishing with hook gear would be exempt from the GB Seasonal Closure Area during May.

        The Operations Plan submitted by the Fixed Gear Sector proposes that Sector members be allowed to fish in a geographic area that extends farther south (south to 35° 00′ N. Lat.) and west (to the coast) than does the area specified in the FW 42 proposed rule, which states that the Fixed Gear Sector would fish only in the GB Cod Hook Sector Area, which is substantially smaller, and does not include the areas to the south or west of GB. In FW 42, the Council proposed that the Fixed Gear Sector be required to fish in the GB Cod Hook Sector Area, and included such a requirement in the proposed regulations, because the GB Cod Hook Sector, which has very similar goals is subject to this requirement (i.e., targeting GB cod). FW 42, which proposes to create the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, did not describe or define a geographic area associated with the Fixed Gear Sector. For both Amendment 13 and FW 42 (proposed), the justification for defining the geographic area in the regulations, in contrast to defining the area only in the Operations Plan, is that the area where a sector fishes is one of the fundamental attributes that defines a sector. Because the Fixed Gear Sector Operations Plan proposes a geographic area that is different from that proposed in FW 42, NMFS is particularly interested in receiving public comments on this subject.
        The EA prepared for the Fixed Gear Sector operations concludes that the biological impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector will be positive because the hard TAC for GB cod will ensure that the Fixed Gear Sector members will not be contributing to overfishing of GB cod, and the use of fixed gear will preclude the use of other gear that may have greater negative bycatch and habitat impacts. Implementation of the Fixed Gear Sector would have a positive impact on essential fish habitat (EFH) and bycatch by allowing a maximum number of hook or gillnet vessels to remain active in the fishery, rather than converting to (or leasing DAS to) other gear types that have greater impacts on EFH. DAS will provide two means of restricting both the landings and effort of the Fixed Gear Sector. Monthly quota targets would spread out the catch throughout the fishing year and prevent the harvest of the cod TAC in an intensive manner. The prohibition on discarding would reduce regulatory discarding, and the elimination of the daily trip limit would allows vessel to operate more efficiently. The analysis of economic impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector concludes that Fixed Gear Sector members would enable member businesses to remain economically viable by realizing higher economic returns, if the Fixed Gear Sector were implemented. The EAEnvironmental Assessment (EA) asserts that fishing in accordance with the Sector Agreement rules enables more adaptable and efficient harvesting of GB cod with fixed gear than would be possible if the vessels were fishing in accordance with the common pool (non-Sector) rules. The social benefits of the Fixed Gear Sector would accrue to Fixed Gear Sector members, as well as the Chatham/Harwichport, MA, community, which is highly dependent upon groundfish revenues. The EA concludes that the self-governing nature of the Fixed Gear Sector and the development of rules by the Fixed Gear Sector enables stewardship of the cod resource by Fixed Gear Sector members. The cumulative impacts of the Fixed Gear Sector are expected to be positive due to a positive biological impact, neutral impact on habitat, and a positive social and economic impact. In contrast, the cumulative impact of the no action alternative is estimated to be neutral, with negative social and economic impacts on the fixed gear fishery.
        Should the Regional Administrator approve the Sector Agreement as proposed, a Letter of Authorization would be issued to each member of the Fixed Gear Sector exempting them, conditional upon their compliance with the Sector Agreement, from the GB cod possession restrictions and the requirements of the GOM trip limit exemption program, as specified in § 648.86(b).
        Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed TAC allocations and plans of operation of sectors.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not made a final determination that the measures this proposed rule would implement are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making the final determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, which has been modified by NMFS for this action, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Below is a summary of the IRFA, which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the Executive Summary and section 3.0 of the EA prepared for this action. The Proposed Alternative would approve the Operations Plan for the 2006 fishing year and allocate a GB cod TAC of 121 mt to the Fixed Gear Sector. Once the GB cod TAC is reached, participating vessel would not be allowed to fish under a DAS, possess or land GB cod, or other regulated species managed under the FMP, or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under recreational or charter/party regulations). Vessels intending to fish in the Fixed Gear Sector this fishing year may not fish for NE multispecies under a groundfish DAS this fishing year until the Sector Operations Plan is approved, and Fixed Gear Sector vessels may use either hook gear or gillnet gear only. Under the proposed Operations Plan, members using hook gear would be exempt from the May GB Seasonal Closure.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $4 million in gross sales, and the size standard for small party/charter operators is $6.5 million. Available data for fishing year 2004 gross sales show that the maximum gross sales for any single commercial fishing vessel was $1.8 million, and the maximum gross sales for any affected party/charter vessel was $1.0 million. While an entity may own multiple vessels, available data make it difficult to determine which vessels may be controlled by a single entity. For this reason, each vessel is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. This means that all commercial and party/charter fishing entities would fall under the SBA size standard for small entities and, therefore, there is no differential impact between large and small entities.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action

        The fixed gear fishermen and the Chatham/Harwichport communities are dependaent upon GB cod and other groundfish. The Amendment 13 restrictions that reduced the GB cod trip limit had a disproportionate affect on the Chatham fixed gear fishermen. According to Amendment 13, Chatham's overall community dependence on multispecies as a percentage of total fisheries revenues from federally permitted vessels averaged about 71 percent. Allocation of cod TAC to a sector and the development of alternative fishing restrictions would mitigate the impacts of Amendment 13. Specifically, the proposed Operations Plan enables Fixed Gear Sector members to fish under a set of rules crafted by Sector members in order to adapt to current economic and fishing conditions. This rule would enable Fixed Gear Sector members to remain economically viable by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses in the short term, and help to maintain associated shoreside job opportunities.
        Because of the time elapsed between the beginning of the fishing year on May 1, 2006, and the anticipated effective date of FW 42, as well as the fact that Sector members are not allowed to fish during the fishing year prior to the approval of the Sector Operations Plan, many prospective members were forced to choose between fishing during the summer and foregoing participation in the Fixed Gear Sector for FY 2006, or to abstain from fishing in order to preserve eligibility to participate in the Fixed Gear Sector. Because June, July, and August are traditionally the most profitable months of the fishing year, many fishermen could not afford to not fish, despite the economic benefits the Sector has to offer. Many fishermen make 50 percent or more of their annual income in those 3 months alone. Therefore, the number of vessels participating in the Fixed Gear Sector in FY 2006 is significantly lower than anticipated.
        Economic Impacts of Alternative to the Proposed Action
        Under the No Action alternative, all Sector members would remain in the common pool of vessels and fish under all the rules implemented by Amendment 13 and subsequent Framework Adjustments, and there would be no allocation of GB cod to the Fixed Gear Sector. Because cod usually represents a high proportion of total fishing income for gillnet and hookgear vessels, revenues for such vessel owners are very sensitive to changes in cod trip limits. Under the scenario of reduced DAS anticipated under FW 42 and a restrictive daily trip limit that would be in place under the no action alternative, it is likely that Fixed Gear Sector vessels would experience revenue losses. It is more likely under the No Action alternative that disruption to the Chatham/Harwichport communities would occur.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

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

          Dated: August 16, 2006.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-13867 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Idaho Springsnail; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jackson Lake Springsnail, Harney Lake Springsnail, and Columbia Springsnail; and Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the Idaho Springsnail

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of two 90-day petition findings and initiation of status review for two 12-month findings and one 5-year review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove (first petition) the Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act), as well as a 90-day finding on a petition to add (second petition) the Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta), Harney Lake springsnail (P. hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail (P. spp. A) to the List as endangered or threatened. We find the first petition presents substantial scientific information that delisting the Idaho springsnail may be warranted. We also find that the second petition presents substantial scientific information that listing the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail may be warranted.
          We are requesting submission of any new information on the Idaho springsnail since its original listing as an endangered species in 1992, and information on the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Following this 12-month status review, we will issue 12-month findings on the petition to delist the Idaho springsnail and the petition to list the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a status review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are therefore electing to conduct these reviews simultaneously. At the conclusion of these reviews, we will issue the 12-month findings on the petitions, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, and make the requisite recommendation under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based on the results of the 5-year review for the Idaho springsnail.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on April 20, 2005. To be considered in the 12-month findings for these delisting or listing petitions, or the 5-year review, comments and information should be submitted to us by June 20, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning these petitions and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Attention: Idaho Springsnail comments, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709. Comments may also be faxed to 208/378-5262, or e-mailed to fw1srbocomment@fws.gov. Please include “Idaho Springsnail Comments” in the subject line for faxes and e-mails. Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. The petitions, supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Steve Lysne, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243 or e-mail steve_lysne@fws.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial data indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we must make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and must promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register. If we find substantial information exists to support the petitioned action, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species (50 CFR 424.14). “Substantial information” is defined in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.” Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned action is warranted to support a “substantial” finding; instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition.
        The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, and/or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error.
        In making these findings for the Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis), Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta), Harney Lake springsnail (P. hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail (P. spp. A), we rely on information provided by the petitioners and evaluate that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The content of these findings summarize that information included in the petition and that which was available to us at the time of the petition review. Our review for the purposes of a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific information” threshold. We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act and regulations contemplate, at the 90-day finding, the key consideration in evaluating a petition involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information supporting the action advanced by the petition.
        Our findings are that the petitions state a reasonable case for delisting (first petition) and listing (second petition) on their face based on the taxonomic information that is presented in the petitions. Thus, in these findings, we express no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the Idaho springsnail should be delisted, or whether the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail should be listed. We can come to a conclusion on those issues only after a more thorough review of the species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more months, we will perform a rigorous critical analysis of the best available scientific information, not just the information in the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the species is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act.
        We listed the Idaho springsnail as endangered on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59244). We determined that the free-flowing, cool water environments required by the Idaho springsnail were altered by deteriorating water quality due to reservoir development, river diversions, and habitat modification (57 FR 59244). The Idaho springsnail was described as existing in the main-stem Snake River from the C.J. Strike Reservoir (river mile 518) to Bancroft Springs (river mile 553), a nearly 80 percent reduction from the species' historic distribution in the Snake River based on the existing literature (Frest 1991). We published the Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan, which included the Idaho springsnail, in 1995. Critical habitat has not been designated for the Idaho springsnail.
        Review of Petitions

        On June 28, 2004, we received a petition from the State of Idaho, Office of Species Conservation, and the Idaho Power Company requesting that the Idaho springsnail be removed from the List based on a taxonomic reappraisal that indicated it is no longer a separate species. The delisting petition cites a recent peer-reviewed article, published in The Veliger, titled “Taxonomic Reappraisal of Species Assigned to the North American Freshwater Gastropod Subgenus Natricola (Rissooidea: Hydrobiidae)” (Hershler and Liu 2004). Hershler and Liu (2004) evaluated the taxonomic status of the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail and recommended placing all four species into P. robusta (Hydrobiidae: Walker 1908). The distribution of P. robusta is “broadly ranging in the northwestern United States, including parts of the Snake-Columbia River basin and several closed basins in southeastern Oregon. Habitats include springs and spring-fed streams as well as large rivers'' Hershler and Liu (2004).

        On August 5, 2004, we received a petition from Dr. Peter Bowler, the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Western Watersheds Project, and The Xerces Society, requesting that the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail be added to the List. This listing petition cites habitat loss and degradation from spring development, domestic livestock grazing, groundwater withdrawal, water pollution, dams, predation, the introduction and spread of nonnative species, and inadequate Federal and State regulatory mechanisms as threats to the continued existence of these other three northwestern springsnail species. The listing petition also cites Hershler and Liu (2004) and their suggested taxonomic revision, and acknowledges that the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, Columbia springsnail may be one species (Pyrgulopsis robusta). However, the listing petition contends that Hershler and Liu (2004) overlooked key differences between the four species, and states that whether assessed individually or as one species, all four springsnails need the protection of the Act.

        Hershler and Liu (2004) suggested three lines of evidence to support changing the taxonomic classification of the Idaho springsnail. Morphology, mitochondrial DNA sequences, and nuclear DNA sequences were used to evaluate the relationship between previously recognized species in the subgenus. Results from the morphology analysis found a significant difference between the ratio of shell height to height of body whorl between the Idaho springsnail and all other species tested. However, several other morphological metrics, including the position of the callus (hardened tissue) on the operculum (serves as a cover for the opening in the shell), the shape of the central cusp of the central teeth, the number of cusps on central teeth, notching of inner marginal teeth, number of cusps on outer marginal teeth, the male penial features, and female genitalia did not differ substantially. The genetic data found very little variation in the partial cytochrome c oxidase (COI) gene (mitochondrial DNA). Differences ranged from 0.0-0.8 percent (0-5 base pairs) within the Natricola subgenus to 2.6-6.9 percent (16-43 base pairs) with outgroups in the genus Pyrgulopsis. This suggests that genetic variation within Natricola differed little compared to genetic variation between Natricola and other species of Pyrgulopsis. In addition, differences in the internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1) sequences (nuclear DNA) within the Natricola subgenus were substantially smaller (0.0-0.6 percent) compared to differences among other congeners (5.9-20.4 percent). These two lines of evidence suggest that differences among the four species are very small compared to differences between other recognized taxa within the larger genus.

        The authors then contend that “three independent data sets (morphology, mitochondrial, and nuclear DNA sequences) congruently suggest that these four Natricola snails do not merit recognition as distinct species according to various currently applied concepts of this taxonomic rank.”

        In addition to the taxonomic revision, Hershler and Liu (2004) noted that the Jackson Lake springsnail was a former Service candidate for threatened or endangered species status. They state that it may be currently threatened by the presence of the exotic New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) in the Pacific Northwest. Also, Hershler and Liu (2004) noted that the Harney Lake springsnail is designated as a critically imperiled species by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, and the middle Snake River population of the Idaho springsnail is genetically isolated from other populations.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the delisting and listing petitions and their supporting documents, as well as other information in our files. We find that the delisting petition and other information in our files present substantial information that delisting the Idaho springsnail may be warranted. We also find that the listing petition and other information in our files present substantial information that listing the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail may be warranted. We are initiating a status review of all four species. We will issue 12-month findings in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act as to whether or not delisting is warranted (first petition) and/or whether or not listing is warranted (second petition).
        Five Year Review

        Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the Idaho springsnail.
        Public Information Solicited
        We are requesting information on the Idaho springsnail for both the 12-month finding and the 5-year review, as we are conducting these reviews simultaneously. We are also requesting information on the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail.
        When we make a finding that substantial information exists to indicate that listing or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting any additional information, comments, or suggestions on the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail from the public, State and Federal agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental entities, or any other interested parties. Information sought includes any data regarding interactions with other populations, historical and current distribution, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species or its habitat, and threats to the species or its habitat. We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
        The 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and commercial data regarding the Idaho springsnail that has become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
        (1) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy, specifically regarding any key differences between the four subspecies;
        (2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
        (3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
        (4) Threat status and trends; and
        (5) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

        If you wish to comment on either of the 12-month findings or 5-year review, you may submit your comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, 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.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this finding is available, upon request, from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Steve Lysne (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: April 7, 2005.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-7640 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27 and 101
        [WT Docket No. 20-443, GN Docket No. 17-183; DA 21-649; FR ID 32905]
        Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, extension of reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Commission grants the request by SpaceX Holdings, LLC, WorldVu Satellites Limited, Kepler Communications, Intelsat License LLC, and SES S.A., for an extension of the reply comment deadline for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

          DATES:
          The reply comment period for the proposed rule published April 16, 2021, at 86 FR 20111, is extended. Reply comments should be received either on or before July 7, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

          • 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 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.
          • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
          • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
          • During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

            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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Madelaine Maior of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1466 or Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov; or Simon Banyai of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1443 or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WT Docket No. 20-443; DA 21-649, adopted and released on June 3, 2021. The full text of this document visit FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-649A1.pdf or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        I. Background
        1. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking input on the feasibility of allowing flexible-use services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12 GHz band) while protecting incumbents from harmful interference.1

           In response to a motion filed by CCIA, et al. for an extension of time to file comments and replies to the NPRM,2

           the Bureau released an Order on March 29, 2021, allowing an additional 30 days to file comments and replies (Extension Order).3

           The Bureau agreed with the parties that a 30-day extension was “warranted to provide commenters with additional time to prepare comments and reply comments that fully respond to the complex economic, engineering, and policy issues raised in the NPRM.” 4
           The Bureau, however, declined two requests by SpaceX Holdings, LLC (“SpaceX”), WorldVu Satellites Limited (“OneWeb”), Kepler Communications, Intelsat License LLC, and SES S.A. (the “12 GHz Alliance”) to indefinitely suspend the initial comment deadline until RS Access, LLC (RS Access) provided certain technical analyses.5

            1 See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et al., WT Docket No. 20-443, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 606 (2021) (NPRM). The comment and reply comment deadlines were set at 30 and 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Publication occurred on March 8, 2021, which made the original deadlines April 7, 2021, and May 7, 2021, respectively. See Federal Communications Commission, Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, 86 FR 13266 (Mar. 8, 2021).

            2 See Motion of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), INCOMPAS, Open Technology Institute at New America, and Public Knowledge for Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., (filed Mar. 19, 2021).

            3 See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et al., WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., Order, DA 21-370 (WTB Mar. 29, 2021) (Extension Order) (extending deadlines for comments and reply comments to May 7, 2021, and June 7, 2021, respectively).

            4 Extension Order at para. 3.

            5 See Extension Order at n.6 (citing Letter from Ruth Pritchard-Kelly, Senior Advisor, ONEWEB, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Mar. 23, 2021)); Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et al., WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., Order, DA 21-519 (WTB May. 4, 2021) (Further Extension Denial Order) (denying further extension requested by 12 GHz Alliance in Letter from Ruth Pritchard-Kelly, Senior Advisor, ONEWEB, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Apr. 26, 2021)).

        2. On May 24, 2021, the 12 GHz Alliance filed the instant request for a 30-day extension of the Reply Comment deadline of June 7, 2021.6
           The 12 GHz Alliance seeks additional time to adequately review and respond to “voluminous—nearly 300 pages in comments and exhibits between just [RS Access, LLC and DISH Network Corporation].” 7
           In response, the 5Gfor12GHz Coalition opposes the instant Reply Extension Request on various grounds.8
           The 5Gfor12GHz Coalition argues that the complex and voluminous nature of the comments do not form the basis for an extension beyond the normal comment and reply schedule expected of routine technical proceedings that involve complex filings.9
           Furthermore, the 5Gfor12GHz Coalition assert that the previously granted extension of the comment deadline by the Commission in this proceeding provided ample additional time for stakeholders to prepare and submit the necessary technical and economic analyses, and that any further delay will hamper 5G deployment in this band to U.S. consumers.10

            6 Motion of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, WorldVu Satellites Limited, Kepler Communications, Intelsat License LLC, and SES S.A. (12 GHz Alliance) for Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., (filed May 24, 2021) (Reply Extension Request).

            7 Reply Extension Request at 3.

            8 See Opposition of 5Gfor12GHz Coalition to Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 20-443, et al., (filed May 27, 2021) (5Gfor12GHz Coalition Opposition). The 5Gfor12GHz Coalition's members include INCOMPAS, Public Knowledge, DISH Network, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), RS Access, Open Technology Institute at New America, Federated Wireless, AtLink, Cambridge Broadband Networks Group Ltd. (CBNG), Center for Education Innovations (CEI), Center for Rural Strategies, Etheric Networks, GeoLinks, Go Long Wireless, Granite Telecommunications, mmWave Tech, MVD Number 53 Partners, Resound Networks, Rise Broadband, Rural Wireless Association (RWA), Tel Net Worldwide, Tilson, VMware, WeLink, White Cloud Technologies, Xiber and X-Lab. 5Gfor12GHz Coalition Opposition at 1, n.1. Public Knowledge, Federated Wireless, MVD Number 53 Partners, and Center for Rural Strategies abstained from this opposition. Id.

            9 See 5Gfor12GHz Coalition Opposition at 2 (citing Amendment of Rules Governing Ultra-Wideband Devices and Systems, Order Denying Extension of Time to File Comments and Reply Comment, 34 FCC Rcd. 7176, 7177 ¶ 3 (2019) (denying request to extend comment and reply deadlines in response to a petition for rulemaking) (Ultra-Wideband Extension Denial).

            10 See 5Gfor12GHz Coalition Opposition at 4.

        3. The Commission grants the Reply Extension Request filed by the 12 GHz Alliance. As set forth in Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules,11

           the Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission previously found good cause for granting a 30-day extension of the original comment period to provide commenters with additional time to prepare initial comments addressing the complex economic, engineering, and policy issues raised in the NPRM. The Commission now finds that a 30-day extension of the reply comment period—until July 7, 2021—is justified for the same reasons, in order to give parties ample time to respond to the complex economic, engineering, and policy issues raised in the initial comments to the NPRM.12
           The Commission notes that the precedent for denying the Reply Extension Request cited by the 5Gfor12GHz Coalition is unpersuasive in this case.13

            11 47 CFR 1.46.

            12 In making this finding, the Commission gives no credit to the 12 GHz Alliance's suggestion that the studies that RS Access and DISH submitted with their timely-filed comments were somehow “belated submissions . . . to limit other interested parties' ability to review and [reply].” Reply Extension Request at 3. See generally 5Gfor12GHz Coalition Opposition at 3, Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel to RS Access, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (“The notion that timely receipt of a party's initial comments in a Commission rulemaking proceeding precludes other parties' meaningful participation in that proceeding defies logical explanation.”) (Apr. 28, 2021).

            13 The Ultra-Wideband Extension Denial cited by the 5Gfor12GHz Coalition, see supra note 9, involved a decision declining to extend both the original comment and reply comment deadlines in response to a public notice for a petition for rulemaking—a step preliminary to initiation of a rulemaking proceeding. By comparison, the pleading cycle in the instant proceeding is in response to the NPRM, and the Bureau previously found a 30-day extension of the original comment deadline was justified in this case.

        II. Ordering Clause
        4. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and §§ 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46, the Reply Extension Request filed by SpaceX Holdings, LLC, WorldVu Satellites Limited, Kepler Communications, Intelsat License LLC, and SES S.A., on May 24, 2021 IS GRANTED.

        5. It is further ordered that the deadline to file reply comments in this proceeding is extended to July 7, 2021.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Amy Brett,
          Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2021-12947 Filed 6-21-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P