        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054]
        [MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
        RIN 1018-AW20
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our August 27, 2009, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia).  We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA), revisions to proposed critical habitat, and an amended required determinations section of the proposal.  We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed critical habitat, the associated DEA, the proposed addition of three subunits based on new information, and the amended required determinations section.  If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          The comment period for the proposed rule published August 27, 2009, at 74 FR 44238, is reopened.  We will consider comments from all interested parties received or postmarked on or before June 17, 2010.  Please note that if you use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.  Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments on docket number FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
          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:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone (760) 431-9440; facsimile (760) 431-5901.  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 intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule is based on the best scientific data available and will be accurate and as effective as possible.  Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested party during this reopened comment period on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) that was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), including comments on the addition of subunits 3B, 4D, and 5B to the proposed critical habitat; the DEA of the revised proposed designation; and the amended required determinations provided in this document.  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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the 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 is not prudent.

        (2) Specific information that may assist us in clarifying or identifying more specific primary constituent elements (PCEs).  Available information does not identify a consistent pattern in specific life-history requirements and habitat types where this species is found.  For these reasons, the PCEs in the proposed rule are broad and based on our assessment of the ecosystem settings in which the species has most frequently been detected and our best assessment regarding its life-history requisites.  We specifically seek information that may assist us in defining those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species which may require special management considerations or protection, or in identifying specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed that may be essential for the conservation of the species.  In particular, answers to the following questions may be helpful to clarify or identify more specific PCEs of A. pumila habitat:
        • Does the species reproduce via seed?  If so, does the species rely on some aspect of its environment to trigger seed germination?
        • What are the key factors determining why the species occupies the particular areas it occupies (but not other areas with the same habitat type)?  For example, what role does proximity to waterways or vernal pools play?
        (3) Specific information on:

        • The amount and distribution of areas proposed as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila;
        • Areas occupied at the time of listing that contain features essential to the conservation of the species and why we should include or exclude these areas in the designation; and
        • Areas not occupied at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the species and why.

        (4) How the proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined to more closely circumscribe the areas identified as essential.  We also seek recommendations to improve the methodology used to delineate the areas proposed as critical habitat; we especially seek comments regarding how we might more accurately determine how much area beyond the surface covered by above-ground stems that we need to include for each occurrence of Ambrosia pumila in the critical habitat designation to ensure that habitat areas include unseen underground portions (rhizomes) of A. pumila plants (see step number 4 in the Methods section of the proposed critical habitat rule (74 FR 44246, August 27, 2009)).

        (5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the areas proposed as critical habitat and their possible impacts on the species and the proposed critical habitat.

        (6) Any special management considerations or protections that the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila may require.
        (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
        (8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation.  We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (9) Whether the benefit of an exclusion of any particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those areas covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP), and Subarea Plans (City of San Diego and County of San Diego) under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and specific reasons why.
        (10) Information on the extent to which the description of potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.

        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (74 FR 44238) during the initial comment period from August 27, 2009, to October 26, 2009, please do not resubmit them.  These comments are included in the public record for this rulemaking and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.  Our final determination concerning the critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods.  On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas within the proposed critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule, the associated DEA, the additional subunits we are proposing in this document, and our amended required determinations by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website.  If your submission is made via a hard copy 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 hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.  Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used to prepare this notice, will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).  You may obtain copies of the original proposed designation of critical habitat (74 FR 44238) and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054, or by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila in this notice.  For more information on previous Federal actions concerning A. pumila, refer to the 2009 proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), or contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features 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 a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.  If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if any activity they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect designated critical habitat.
        Draft Economic Analysis
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based on the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

        We prepared a DEA (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010) that identifies and analyzes the potential, probable economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat.  Additionally, the DEA looks retrospectively at costs incurred since the July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44372), listing of A. pumila as an endangered species.  The DEA quantifies the probable economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for A. pumila; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we finalize the critical habitat rule, as they are attributable to the listing of the species under the Act.  The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing a “with critical habitat” scenario with a “without critical habitat” scenario.  The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the economic analysis and considers protections already in place for the species (for example, protections resulting from the Federal listing, and protections provided by other Federal, State, and local regulations).  The baseline costs, therefore, represent 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 A. pumila.  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 relative to areas that may be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.  The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat.

        The DEA (made available with the publication of this document and referred to throughout this document unless otherwise noted) estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila.  The economic analysis identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation, which are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs coextensive with listing.  It also discusses potential benefits that may be derived from the designation in a qualitative manner.

        Baseline economic impacts are those that result from listing and other conservation efforts for Ambrosia pumila.  Future baseline impacts in the areas proposed as critical habitat are entirely attributed to development activities; no future baseline impacts were attributed to transportation construction and maintenance.  Total future baseline impacts are estimated to be $20.6 million ($1.9 million annualized using a 7 percent discount rate over the next 20 years (2010-2029)) in areas proposed as critical habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, p. ES-6).
        All incremental impacts attributed to the proposed critical habitat designation are expected to be related to development; no future incremental impacts were attributed to transportation construction and maintenance.  The DEA estimates total potential incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20 years (2010-2029) to be $118,750 ($11,203 annualized using a 7 percent discount rate) (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, p. ES-7).

        In this notice, we propose to add 338 acres (ac) (137 hectares (ha)) (Subunits 3B, 4D, and 5B) to the 802 ac (324 ha) that we proposed as critical habitat on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), bringing the total to 1,140 ac (461 ha) of proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (see Changes to Proposed Critical Habitat below).  The additional acreage in Subunits 3B, 4D, and 5B have not been assessed in the DEA announced in this notice.  However, all incremental costs estimated in the DEA for all properties within the originally proposed critical habitat are attributed to the minor administrative costs of conducting adverse modification analyses during jeopardy analyses ($448 annualized using a 7 percent discount rate per property).  Because the three newly proposed subunits are all occupied by the species, we only anticipate minor incremental costs associated with adverse modification analyses conducted during jeopardy analyses.  For this reason, we do not expect the incremental costs for the newly proposed areas to exceed those estimated for properties included in the DEA.  The final economic analysis will reflect the baseline and incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the entire 1,140 ac (461 ha).

        The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects.  In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (for example, lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).  The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals.  The DEA describes economic impacts of Ambrosia pumila conservation efforts associated with residential and commercial development, and transportation-related construction and maintenance.  The DEA also analyzes the economic impact on small entities and the energy industry.  Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector (see Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Changes to Proposed Critical Habitat
        In this document, we are proposing additional subunits to Ambrosia pumila critical habitat in Units 3, 4, and 5, which were initially identified and described in the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238).  We obtained data after the publication of the proposed rule informing us of the existence of one occurrence not previously known to us (Subunit 3B), and confirming the continued existence of an occurrence thought to be extirpated (Subunit 5B).  Based on a public comment received during the public comment period, we re-evaluated all available data for A. pumila occurrences throughout the range of the species.  As a result of our re-evaluation, we determined an additional area in San Diego County (Subunit 4D) meets the definition of critical habitat for A. pumila because, although it is small in size (approximately 20 ac (8 ha)), it is occupied, and otherwise meets the definition of critical habitat and the criteria for inclusion in critical habitat as set forth in our proposal (see Subunit 4D:  Gird Road/Monserate Hill below).  The purpose of the revisions described below is to better delineate the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for A. pumila. These three additional subunits were within the geographic range occupied by the species at the time it was listed and contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species.  Subunits 3B, 4D, and 5B were not included in the proposed rule (74 FR 44238, August 27, 2009); therefore, this document includes the full descriptions and maps for these subunits.  As a result of these proposed additions, the overall area proposed as critical habitat for A. pumila is 1,140 ac (461 ha), an increase of 338 ac (137 ha) from the 802 ac (324 ha) that we proposed as critical habitat on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238).
        Subunit 3B:  Murrieta Creek

        We were not aware of the Murrieta Creek occurrence (Subunit 3B) of Ambrosia pumila when we developed the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the species (74 FR 44238; August 27, 2009); therefore, this occurrence was not included in the proposed rule.  Based on new information obtained from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010), we are proposing Subunit 3B as critical habitat because this area is within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, contains the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and meets our criteria for inclusion in critical habitat.  We have concluded that this area was occupied at the time the species was listed because individuals of species with a clonal growth habit like A. pumila are usually long-lived (Watkinson and White 1985, pp. 44-45; Tanner 2001, p. 1980).  To our knowledge, the area had not been surveyed for A. pumila previously, and we have no reason to believe the plant was imported or had dispersed into these areas from other areas after A. pumila was listed.  Occurrences identified since listing were likely in existence for many years and were only recently detected due to increased awareness of this species.  We mapped the boundary of this subunit using our current mapping methodology as described in the Methods section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44245-44247, August 27, 2009).  Unit 3 as described in the proposed rule (74 FR 44248-44249) is now Subunit 3A.

        Subunit 3B is located in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, California.  This subunit is near the western end of 1st Street, just west of Murrieta Creek. Subunit 3B consists of approximately 44 ac (18 ha) of privately owned land.  This subunit meets the definition of critical habitat for this species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see “Genetics” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241)).  Subunit 3B contains physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland habitat type, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2).  The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from human foot and vehicle traffic that may occur in the area, and from development.  Please see the “Special Management Considerations or Protection” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44244-44245, August 27, 2009) for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
        Subunit 4D:  Gird Road/Monserate Hill
        We re-evaluated all information available for Ambrosia pumila occurrences and determined that the Gird Road/Monserate Hill area (Subunit 4D) meets the definition of critical habitat, despite its small size relative to other proposed units.  We are proposing Subunit 4D as critical habitat because this area is within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, contains the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and meets the criteria for inclusion in critical habitat.  We mapped the boundary of this subunit using our current mapping methodology as described in the Methods section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44245-44247, August 27, 2009).

        Subunit 4D is located in the Fallbrook area of northern San Diego County, California.  This subunit is adjacent to the north side of State Route 76, almost the same distance from both Gird Road (to the west) and Monserate Hill Road (to the east).  Subunit 4D consists of approximately 20 ac (8 ha) of privately owned land and 1 ac (0.5 ha) of State-owned land for a total of approximately 21 ac (9 ha).  This subunit meets the definition of critical habitat for the species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see “Genetics” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241)).  Subunit 4D contains physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland habitat type, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2).  The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from foot and vehicle traffic in the area, and from development and road maintenance.  Please see the “Special Management Considerations or Protection” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44244-44245, August 27, 2009) for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
        Subunit 5B:  Lake Hodges West - Crosby Estates

        We were unaware that the Crosby Estates occurrence (Subunit 5B) of Ambrosia pumila is extant when we developed the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the species (74 FR 44238, August 27, 2009); therefore, this area was not included in the proposed rule.  This occurrence was extant at the time of listing, but was thought to have been extirpated.  We have since obtained information (The Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat Management Plan Annual Report 2008 (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2008)) confirming this occurrence is extant and viable.  Based on this information, we are proposing Subunit 5B as critical habitat because it is currently occupied, is within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, contains the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and meets the criteria for inclusion in critical habitat.  We mapped the boundary of this subunit using our current mapping methodology as described in the Methods section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44245-44247, August 27, 2009).  Unit 5 as described in the proposed rule (74 FR 44249-44250) is now Subunit 5A.

        Subunit 5B is located just west of Lake Hodges in the western portion of central San Diego County, California.  This subunit is on and adjacent to the west side of the Crosby National Golf Club.  Subunit 5B consists of approximately 116 ac (47 ha) of privately owned land, 2 ac (1 ha) of local government owned land, and 155 ac (63 ha) of County-owned land for a total of approximately 273 ac (111 ha).  This subunit is meets the definition of critical habitat for this species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see “Genetics” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241)).  Subunit 5B contains physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland habitat type, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2).  The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit, including features within the approximately 155 ac (63 ha) portion of Subunit 5B that is conserved (57 percent), may require special management considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from human encroachment that may occur in the area, and from golf course maintenance.  Please see the “Special Management Considerations or Protection” section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44244-44245, August 27, 2009) for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
        Additional Areas Currently Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act -Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP)

        Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the proposed rule discusses approximately 263 ac (106 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Unit 1 (Subunits 1A and 1B), Unit 2, and Subunit 3A (formerly Unit 3 in the proposed rule) that we are considering whether or not to exercise our discretion to exclude from critical habitat designation.  We are also considering exclusion of approximately 44 ac (18 ha) of Ambrosia pumila
          habitat on permittee-owned or controlled lands in Subunit 3B that meet the definition of critical habitat for A. pumila within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area.  We are considering exercising our discretion to exclude this subunit because the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses threats to A. pumila and features essential to its conservation through a regional planning effort and outlines species-specific objectives and criteria for the conservation of A. pumila and its habitat.  No land in Subunit 3B is currently conserved by the MSHCP; however, all of the subunit falls within the Criteria Area where conservation under the habitat conservation plan (HCP) may occur (any projects in this area should be implemented through the Joint Project Review Process to ensure that the requirements of the MSHCP permit and the Implementing Agreement are properly met (Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.6.2 in Dudek 2003, p. 6-82)).  Additionally, all 44 ac (18 ha) fall within our Conceptual Reserve Design where conservation is likely to occur.  Please see “Exclusions Based on Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)” in the proposed rule (74 FR 44253-44257, August 27, 2009) for a more detailed discussion of the protections afforded to A. pumila by the Western Riverside County MSHCP.  We will analyze the benefits of inclusion in and exclusion from critical habitat of this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the final rule.
        Additional Areas Currently Considered For Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act -San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)—City and County of San Diego Subarea Plans

        Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the proposed rule discusses 278 ac (113 ha) proposed as critical habitat in Subunit 5A (formerly Unit 5 in the proposed rule), Unit 6, and Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C that we are considering exercising our discretion to exclude from critical habitat designation.  We are also considering excluding approximately 273 ac (111 ha) of non-Federal lands in Subunit 5B that meet the definition of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.  Implementation of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan helps to address threats to the species and the features essential to its conservation through a regional planning effort rather than through a project-by-project approach, and outlines species-specific objectives and criteria for the conservation of A. pumila and its habitat.  Approximately 184 ac (74 ha) of Subunit 5B is within the MSCP Multi-Habitat Planning Area.  Please see “Exclusions Based on Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)” in the proposed rule (74 FR 44253-44257, August 27, 2009) for a more detailed discussion of the protections afforded to A. pumila by the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.  We will analyze the benefits of inclusion in and exclusion from critical habitat of this area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, all aspects of the proposed critical habitat rule (including the additions of Subunits 3B, 4D, and 5B to proposed critical habitat, and the additional areas considered for exclusion from critical habitat designation), and our amended required determinations.  The final rule may differ from the proposed rule based on information we receive during the public comment periods.  In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Required Determinations-—Amended
        In our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA.  We have now made use of the DEA to make these determinations.  In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 12630 (Takings), the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951).  Based on the information in the DEA, 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 (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), as described below.  However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  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 a final rulemaking.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201).  Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000.  To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.  In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila would affect a substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development.  In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually.  In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.  Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.

        If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat.  In areas where Ambrosia pumila is present, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process because A. pumila is listed as an endangered species under the Act.

        Appendix A.1 of the DEA evaluates the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila.  The analysis is based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed rule as described in sections 1 through 3 of the DEA.  The SBREFA analysis evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to project modifications on privately held developable land (Industrial Economics, Inc. p. A-3).  The incremental impacts considered for the SBREFA analysis are the impacts that will affect development companies considered to be small businesses.  The DEA indicates that 3 out of a total of a possible 9,222 land development companies in the counties where critical habitat is proposed would be affected by the designation of critical habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, Appendix A, ES-8).  Due to the designation of critical habitat the annual incremental impacts to these 3 small businesses will be approximately $448 each at a 7 percent discount rate (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, Appendix A, 3-14).  We do not believe these 3 small businesses represent a substantial number of the total number of development companies or that an annual impact of $448 per company is a significant economic impact.  Therefore, we do not find that the designation of critical habitat for A. pumila will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        In summary, we considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

        On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use.  Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.  The OMB's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to no regulatory action.  As discussed in Appendix A, the DEA finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis.  The DEA concludes that no incremental impacts are forecast associated specifically with this rulemaking on the production, distribution, or use of energy.  Therefore, designation of critical habitat for A. pumila is not expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production or distribution).  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, the Service makes 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 also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly.  “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.”
        Critical habitat designation 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.  Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency.  However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.  Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

        (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila, we do not believe that this 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 incremental impacts may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for development activities; however, these are not expected to affect small governments.  Incremental impacts stemming from species conservation and development-control activities associated with this critical habitat designation are not expected to 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 Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author(s)

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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

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

          PART 17—[AMENDED]

        1.  The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

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

        2.  Critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia), which was proposed for addition to § 17.96(a) on August 27, 2009, at 74 FR 44237, is proposed to be amended by:
        a.  Removing the index map at paragraph (5) and adding in its place a new index map as set forth below;
        b.  Revising paragraph (7)(ii);
        c.  Revising paragraph (8); and
        d.  Revising paragraph (9), to read as follows:

          § 17.96
          Critical habitat—plants.

        (a) Flowering plants.
        Family Asteraceae: Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia)
        (5) *   *   *
        BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

          EP18MY10.051

        (7)  *   *   *

        (ii)  Note:  Map of Units 2 and 3, with Subunits 3A and 3B, of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia), Riverside County, California, follows:

          EP18MY10.052

        (8) Unit 4, Subunits 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, San Diego County, California.
        (i)  [Reserved for textual description of unit.]

        (ii)  Note:  Map of Unit 4, with Subunits 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia), San Diego County, California, follows:

          EP18MY10.053

        (9) Unit 5, Subunits 5A and 5B, San Diego County, California.
        (i)  [Reserved for textual description of unit.]

        (ii)  Note:  Map of Unit 5, with Subunits 5A and 5B, of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia), San Diego County, California, follows:

          EP18MY10.054

          Dated: May 7, 2010
          Will Shafroth,
          Acting Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc.  2010-11674 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-C


        CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
        16 CFR Part 1640
        [Docket No. CPSC-2021-0007]
        Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture

          AGENCY:
          U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is proposing to codify in the Code of Federal Regulations the statutory requirements for the flammability of upholstered furniture under the COVID-19 Regulatory Relief and Work From Home Safety Act. This Act mandates that CPSC promulgate California Technical Bulletin 117-2013 as a flammability standard for upholstered furniture under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section in this issue of the Federal Register
            , the Commission is issuing this determination as a direct final rule. If we receive no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Submit comments by May 10, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You can submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2021-0007, by any of the following methods:

            Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. CPSC does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through https://www.regulations.gov. CPSC encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

            Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written Submissions: Submit comments by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division of the Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-7479. Alternatively, as a temporary option during the COVID-19 pandemic, you may email such submissions to: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. CPSC may post all comments without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit electronically: Confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit such information, please submit it according to the instructions for mail/hand delivery/courier written submissions.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: h
            ttps:
            /
            /www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number, CPSC-2021-0007, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Andrew Lock, Project Manager, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850, phone: (301) 987-2099; email: alock@cpsc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Along with this proposed rule, CPSC is publishing a direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register. The CPSC is using the direct final rule procedure to codify in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the statutory provision of the COVID-19 Regulatory Relief and Work From Home Safety Act (COVID-19 Act). Section 2101(c) of the COVID-19 Act mandates that, 180 days after the date of enactment of the COVID-19 Act, the standard for upholstered furniture set forth by the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California in Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013 (TB 117-2013), entitled, “Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,” published June 2013, “shall be considered to be a flammability standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1193).” Under the direct final rule, the standard is effective June 25, 2021; however, compliance with the labeling requirement shall be required by June 25, 2022.

        CPSC believes that this action is not controversial, and CPSC does not expect significant adverse comment because we are codifying statutorily mandated requirements. CPSC has explained the reasons for codifying the statutory language in the direct final rule. Unless CPSC receives significant adverse comment regarding the determination during the comment period, the direct final rule in this issue of the Federal Register will become effective on June 25, 2021, and CPSC will not take further action on this proposal. If CPSC receives a significant adverse comment, CPSC will publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule, and the rule will not take effect. CPSC will then respond to public comments in a later final rule, based on this proposed rule. CPSC does not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, please see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register.

          List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1640
          Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Upholstered furniture materials, Textiles.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1640 to subchapter D to read as follows:

          PART 1640—STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

            Sec.
            1640.1
            Purpose and scope.
            1640.2
            Effective date and compliance date.
            1640.3
            Definitions.
            1640.4
            Certification and labeling.
            1640.5
            Requirements.
            1640.6
            Incorporation by reference.

            Authority:
             Sec. 2101, Pub. L. 116-260, 15 U.S.C. 1193.

            § 1640.1
            Purpose and scope.
            (a) Purpose. This part establishes the standard for the flammability of upholstered furniture, as set forth by the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California in Technical Bulletin 117- 2013, entitled “Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,” published June 2013 (for availability, see § 1640.6).
            (b) Scope. All upholstered furniture as defined in § 1640.3 manufactured, imported, or reupholstered on or after the effective date of this standard is subject to the requirements of this part.

            § 1640.2
            Effective date and compliance date.
            (a) Effective date. This part (the standard) is effective June 25, 2021 and shall apply to all upholstered furniture, as defined in § 1640.3, manufactured, imported, or reupholstered on or after that date.
            (b) Compliance date. Compliance with the labeling requirement in § 1640.4 shall be required by June 25, 2022, and shall apply to all upholstered furniture, as defined in § 1640.3, manufactured, imported, or reupholstered on or after that date.

            § 1640.3
            Definitions.
            (a) Bedding product means
            (1) An item that is used for sleeping or sleep-related purposes; or
            (2) Any component or accessory with respect to an item described in this paragraph (a), without regard to whether the component or accessory, as applicable, is used—
            (i) Alone; or
            (ii) Along with, or contained within, that item;
            (b) California standard means the standard set forth by the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California in Technical Bulletin 117- 2013, entitled “Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture”, published June 2013 (see § 1640.6).
            (c) Foundation has the meaning given that term in § 1633.2 of this chapter.
            (d) Mattress has the meaning given that term in § 1633.2 of this chapter.
            (e) Upholstered furniture. (1) Means an article of seating furniture that—
            (i) Is intended for indoor use;
            (ii) Is movable or stationary;

            (iii) Is constructed with an upholstered seat, back, or arm;

            (iv) Is:
            (A) Made or sold with a cushion or pillow, without regard to whether that cushion or pillow, as applicable, is attached or detached with respect to the article of furniture, or
            (B) Stuffed or filled, or able to be stuffed or filled, in whole or in part, with any material, including a substance or material that is hidden or concealed by fabric or another covering, including a cushion or pillow belonging to, or forming a part of, the article of furniture; and
            (v) Together with the structural units of the article of furniture, any filling material, and the container and covering with respect to those structural units and that filling material, can be used as a support for the body of an individual, or the limbs and feet of an individual, when the individual sits in an upright or reclining position;
            (2) Includes an article of furniture that is intended for use by a child; and
            (3) Does not include—
            (i) A mattress;
            (ii) A foundation;
            (iii) Any bedding product; or
            (iv) Furniture that is used exclusively for the purpose of physical fitness and exercise.

            § 1640.4
            Certification and labeling.
            (a) Testing and certification. A fabric, related material, or product to which the California standard applies shall not be subject to section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) with respect to that standard.
            (b) Certification label. Each manufacturer of a product that is subject to the California standard shall include the statement “Complies with U.S. CPSC requirements for upholstered furniture flammability” on a permanent label located on the product, which shall be considered to be a certification that the product complies with that standard.

            § 1640.5
            Requirements.
            (a) In general. All upholstered furniture must comply with the requirements in the California standard, Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013, “Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,” June 2013 (incorporated by reference § 1640.6).
            (b) Preemption. Notwithstanding section 16 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1203) and section 231 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 2051 note), and except as provided in sections 1374, 1374.2, and 1374.3 of 4 California Code of Regulations (CCR) (except for subsections (b) and (c) of section 1374 of that title) (incorporated by reference § 1640.6) or the California standard, no State or any political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect any provision of a flammability law, regulation, code, standard, or requirement that is designed to protect against the risk of occurrence of fire, or to slow or prevent the spread of fire, with respect to upholstered furniture.
            (c) Preservation of certain state law. Nothing in Public Law 116-260 or the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq.) and section 231 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 2051 note), may be construed to preempt or otherwise affect:
            (1) Any State or local law, regulation, code, standard, or requirement that—
            (i) Concerns health risks associated with upholstered furniture; and
            (ii) Is not designed to protect against the risk of occurrence of fire, or to slow or prevent the spread of fire, with respect to upholstered furniture;
            (2) Sections 1374, 1374.2, and 1374.3 of 4 CCR (except for subsections (b) and (c) of section 1374 of that title), as in effect on the date of enactment of Public Law 116-260; or
            (3) The California standard.

            § 1640.6
            Incorporation by reference.

            Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, and is available from the other sources listed in this section. To schedule an appointment, contact CPSC's Division of the Secretariat: Telephone (301) 504-7479 or email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. The material is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

            (a) State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, 4244 South Market Court, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 95834; email DCA@dca.ca.gov; phone (800) 952-5210; or visit https://bhgs.dca.ca.gov/about_us/tb117_2013.pdf.

            (1) California standard. Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013, “Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Smolder Resistance of Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,” June 2013; IBR approved for § 1640.5.
            (2) [Reserved]

            (b) State of California, Office of Administrative Law (OAL), 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250, Sacramento, CA 95814-4339, phone 916-323-6815, email staff@oal.ca.gov; or visit https://oal.ca.gov/publications/ccr/; or purchase a hard-copy version (full code or individual titles) from Barclay, publisher of the Official CCR, at 1-800-888-3600.
            (1) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 4, Sections 1374, 1374.2, and 1374.3, in effect as of February 26, 2021 Register 2021, No. 9; IBR approved for § 1640.5.
            (2) [Reserved]

            Alberta E. Mills,
            Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

      [FR Doc. 2021-06976 Filed 4-8-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [WC Docket No. 16-106; Report No. 3067]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the date for filing of Replies to an opposition published in the Federal Register of February 17, 2017, (82 FR 10999) regarding Petitions for Reconsideration of Action. This document corrects the Replies to an opposition deadline to March 16, 2017.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before March 6, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 16, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sherwin Siy, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2783 or email: Sherwin.Siy@fcc.gov.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            Marlene H. Dortch,
            Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2017-04471 Filed 3-7-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10; FRS 16419]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceeding listed below by Angie Kronenberg, on behalf of INCOMPAS, and Paula Boyd, on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 14, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before February 10, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Ray, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-0357.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The full text of the Petitions are available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Petitions also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject:
          Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-79, published at 84 FR 43705, August 22, 2019. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2020-01657 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-1480; MM Docket No. 00-120; RM-9902]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Meeker and Craig, CO

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Western Slope Communications, L.L.C., permittee of Station KAYW, Channel 251C, Meeker, Colorado, requesting the reallotment of Channel 251C to Craig, Colorado, and modification of its authorization accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. Petitioner is requested to provide additional information to support a claim of proposed service to an unserved area at Craig. Coordinates used for this proposal are 40-20-35 NL and 108-04-56 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 21, 2000, and reply comments on or before September 5, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Tom W. Davidson and Michael K. Hamra, Esqs., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-120, adopted June 21, 2000, and released June 30, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 00-18330 Filed 7-19-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 200121-0026]
        RIN 0648-BJ38
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Implementing Permitting and Reporting for Private Recreational Tilefish Vessels

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations to implement permitting and reporting measures for private recreational tilefish vessels that were approved in Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. These measures are being implemented after the other management measures in Amendment 6 because of additional time needed for development. The intended effect of this action is to notify private recreation tilefish vessels of the proposed changes and to solicit public comment on these measures.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-005, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-005, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Permitting and Reporting for Private Recreational Tilefish Anglers.”

            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 part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of Amendment 6, and of the Environmental Assessment (EA), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and Regulatory Impact Review are also accessible via the internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/blueline-tilefish.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9225.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On November 15, 2017, we announced our approval of all the measures proposed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in the Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) final rule (82 FR 52851). The final rule implemented most, but not all, of the measures in the amendment. The amendment implemented management measures and quotas for the previously unregulated blueline tilefish fishery in the Mid-Atlantic region and additional information and analysis on these measures are provided in the EA (see ADDRESSES). We also approved, but did not implement, Mid-Atlantic Council recommended measures to better characterize and monitor the recreational fisheries for both blueline tilefish and golden tilefish. Angler intercepts for these species are rare events and are poorly captured by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Amendment 6 measures included a new Federal permit for private recreational fishing vessels to target or retain blueline or golden tilefish, as well as mandatory reporting requirements for these vessels. These measures required additional time for development, prior to implementation.
        Proposed Permitting and Reporting Requirements
        We are proposing regulations to require private recreational vessels to obtain a Federal vessel permit to fish for or a retain golden or blueline tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic, which are permitting and reporting requirements recommended by the Council and approved as part of Amendment 6.

        This action does not impact the regulations for party/charter vessels and will apply to anglers using a personal vessel, to fish for and/or obtain blueline and golden tilefish. Retained fish may only be kept for personal consumption and may not be sold or bartered. We would issue this permit through an online application on the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) website. GARFO would issue and renew private recreational tilefish permits annually. Private recreational tilefish vessels would also be required to submit vessel trip reports (VTRs) for any trip targeting tilefish through any NMFS-approved electronic reporting system. There are several platforms to submit electronic reports including SAFIS eTrips, SAFIS eTrips Online, and Fish Online. Fish Online is the simplest system and is the preferred method to submit reports. Users can create an account by calling (978) 281-9188 or emailing the GARFO Helpdesk at nmfs.gar.helpdesk@noaa.gov. Fish Online can be accessed via a computer, phone, and/or tablet, and we intend to conduct outreach and education to minimize burden and confusion with filling out the VTRs. Private recreational vessels targeting tilefish may keep a paper log to keep records while out at sea, to be submitted electronically within 24 hours of returning to port. The 24-hour submission requirement is proposed to coincide with the requirement for Highly Migratory Species permit holders because we expect there to be some overlap between the two groups. We would like comments on the suitability of the proposed timeframe for submission of the VTRs.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the measures approved in Amendment 6 to the Tilefish FMP, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Private recreational anglers are not considered small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this action and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule contains two revisions to existing collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NMFS has submitted these requirements to OMB for approval under control number 0648-0202 and 0648-0212.

        The public reporting burden for initial private recreational tilefish permit applications is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Public reporting burden for private recreational tilefish vessel trip reports is estimated to average five minutes per response. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: January 22, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.4, add paragraphs (a)(12)(iii) and (c)(2)(i)(A) through (B) to read as follows:

          § 648.4
          Vessel permits.
          (a) * * *
          (12) * * *
          (iii) Private recreational vessel permits. Any private recreational vessel must have been issued, under this part, a Federal recreational tilefish vessel permit to fish for, possess, or land either golden tilefish or blueline tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit. Such vessel must observe the recreational possession limits as specified at § 648.296 and the prohibition on sale.

          (c) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) An application for a private recreational tilefish permit issued under this section, in addition to the information specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, also must contain at least the following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator: Vessel name, owner name or name of the owner's authorized representative, mailing address, and telephone number; USCG documentation number and a copy of the vessel's current USCG documentation or, for a vessel not required to be documented under title 46 U.S.C., the vessel's state registration number and a copy of the current state registration.
          (B) [Reserved]

        3. Amend § 648.7 by:
        a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (iii) and;
        b. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (f)(2)(iv).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 648.7
          Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          (b) * * *

          (1) * * *
          (i) General. Except for vessel owners or operators fishing under a surfclam or ocean quahog permit, or fishing under a private recreational tilefish permit, the owner or operator of any vessel issued a valid permit or eligible to renew a limited access permit under this part must:
          (A) Maintain on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing log report for each fishing trip, regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or approved by the Regional Administrator.
          (B) If authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may submit reports electronically, for example by using a VMS or other media.
          (C) At least the following information and any other information required by the Regional Administrator must be provided:
          (1) Vessel name;
          (2) USCG documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented);
          (3) Permit number;
          (4) Date/time sailed;
          (5) Date/time landed;
          (6) Trip type;
          (7) Number of crew;
          (8) Number of anglers (if a charter or party boat);
          (9) Gear fished;
          (10) Quantity and size of gear;
          (11) Mesh/ring size;
          (12) Chart area fished;
          (13) Average depth;
          (14) Latitude/longitude (or loran station and bearings);
          (15) Total hauls per area fished;
          (16) Average tow time duration;
          (17) Hail weight, in pounds (or count of individual fish, if a party or charter vessel), by species, of all species, or parts of species, such as monkfish livers, landed or discarded; and,
          (18) In the case of skate discards, “small” (i.e., less than 23 inches (58.42 cm), total length) or “large” (i.e., 23 inches (58.42 cm) or greater, total length) skates;
          (19) Dealer permit number;
          (20) Dealer name;
          (21) Date sold, port and state landed; and
          (22) Vessel operator's name, signature, and operator's permit number (if applicable).
          (ii) * * *
          (iii) Charter/Party vessel permit owners and operators. The owner or operator of any fishing vessel that holds a Federal charter/party (for-hire) permit to fish for Atlantic bluefish, black sea bass, scup, summer flounder, tilefish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, and/or butterfish, when on a trip carrying passengers for hire, must submit the required Vessel Trip Report by electronic means. This report must be submitted through a software application approved by NMFS and must contain all applicable information outlined in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
          (iv) Private tilefish recreational vessel owners and operators. The owner or operator of any fishing vessel that holds a Federal private recreational tilefish permit, must report for each recreational trip fishing for or retaining blueline or golden tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit. The required Vessel Trip Report must be submitted by electronic means. This report must be submitted through a NMFS approved electronic reporting system within 24 hours of the trip returning to port. The vessel operator may keep paper records while onboard and upload the data after landing. The report must contain the following information:
          (A) Vessel name;
          (B) USCG documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented);
          (C) Permit number;
          (D) Date/time sailed;
          (E) Date/time landed;
          (F) Trip type;
          (G) Number of anglers;
          (H) Species
          (I) Gear fished;
          (J) Quantity and size of gear;
          (K) Soak time
          (L) Depth
          (M) Chart Area
          (N) Latitude/longitude where fishing occurred;
          (O) Count of individual golden and blueline tilefish landed or discarded; and
          (P) Port and state landed

          (f) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (iv) Private recreational tilefish electronic log reports, required by paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, must be submitted within 24 hours after entering port at the conclusion of a trip.

        4. In § 648.8 add paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          § 648.8
          Vessel identification.

          (f) Private Recreational Tilefish Vessels. Vessels issued only a Federal private recreational tilefish permit are not subject to the requirements of § 648.8, but must comply with any other applicable state or Federal vessel identification requirements.

        5. In § 648.11 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 648.11
          At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.
          (a) The Regional Administrator may request any vessel holding a permit for Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, monkfish, skates, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, bluefish, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, tilefish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, or Atlantic deep-sea red crab; or a moratorium permit for summer flounder; to carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer. A vessel holding a permit for Atlantic sea scallops is subject to the additional requirements specific in paragraph (g) of this section. Also, any vessel or vessel owner/operator that fishes for, catches or lands hagfish, or intends to fish for, catch, or land hagfish in or from the exclusive economic zone must carry a NMFS-certified fisheries observer when requested by the Regional Administrator in accordance with the requirements of this section. The requirements of this section do not apply to vessels with only a Federal private recreational tilefish permit.

        6. In § 648.14 add paragraph (u)(1)(iii)(C) and revise paragraph (u)(2)(i)(C) to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (u) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) * * *
          (C) Operate a private recreational vessel to fish for, retain, and/or possess blueline or golden tilefish, in the Tilefish Management Unit, without a valid tilefish private recreational permit as required in § 648.4(a)(12)(iii).
          (2) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (C) The tilefish were harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit by a vessel with a Federal private recreational tilefish permit or a Federal charter/party tilefish permit.

        7. In 648.296 revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 648.296
          Tilefish recreational possession limits and gear restrictions.
          (a) * * *

          (1) The recreational tilefish possession limit for charter/party and private recreational anglers is eight golden tilefish per angler per trip. Any vessel engaged in recreational fishing for golden tilefish may not retain golden tilefish, unless issued a valid Federal charter/party permit, pursuant to 648.4(a)(12)(ii), or a valid Federal private recreational tilefish permit issued pursuant to 648.4(a)(12)(iv).

          (b) * * *
          (1) Private recreational vessels. Anglers fishing onboard a vessel issued a Federal private recreational tilefish permit pursuant to 648.4(a)(12)(iv), may land up to three blueline tilefish per person per trip.

      [FR Doc. 2020-01429 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0561; FRL-9964-57-Region 3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Volatile Organic Compound Reasonably Available Control Technology for 1997 Ozone Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision pertains to the requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT) controls for certain sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This SIP revision includes Pennsylvania's certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Pennsylvania's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and a negative declaration that certain categories of sources do not exist in Pennsylvania. This SIP revision does not address Pennsylvania's May 2016 VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) RACT rule, “Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs,” also known as RACT II. EPA will take separate action on RACT II. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing by August 7, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0561 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to stahl.cynthia@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, the 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at pino.maria@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

          Dated: June 22, 2017.
          Cecil Rodrigues,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2017-14205 Filed 7-6-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P