        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 130722645-4453-01]
        RIN 0648-BD53
        International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Whale Shark Conservation Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement a resolution of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) intended to conserve whale sharks (Rhincodon typhus) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). This proposed rule, if adopted, would prohibit setting a purse seine net on a whale shark, and would require certain measures to protect whale sharks in the event that a whale shark is encircled in a purse seine net. This proposed rulemaking is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by June 30, 2014. A public hearing will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST, June 11, 2014 in Long Beach, CA.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0118, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0118, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Attn: Chris Fanning, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0118” in the comments.
          • Public hearing: The public is welcome to attend a public hearing and offer comments on this proposed rule from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST, June 11, 2014 at 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. The public may also participate in the public hearing via conference line: 1-888-790-6181, passcode 14789.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, 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). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. 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 Chris Fanning, NMFS West Coast Region (see ADDRESSES above) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other supporting documents are available via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2013-0118 or contact with the Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Regional Office, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chris Fanning, NMFS, 562-980-4198 or Heidi Taylor NMFS, 562-980-4039.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background on the IATTC

        The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The full text of the 1949 Convention is available at: http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/IATTC_convention_1949.pdf. The IATTC facilitates scientific research into, as well as conservation and management of, highly migratory species in the IATTC Convention Area (defined as the waters of the EPO). Since 1998, conservation resolutions adopted by the IATTC have further defined the Convention Area as the area bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years, and regularly assesses the status of tuna and billfish stocks in the EPO to determine appropriate catch limits and other measures deemed necessary to prevent overexploitation of these stocks and to promote sustainable fisheries. Current IATTC member countries include: Belize, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, France, Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia and the Cook Islands are cooperating non-members.
        International Obligations of the United States Under the Convention
        As a Contracting Party to the 1949 Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement resolutions adopted by the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951-962) directs the Secretary of Commerce, after approval by the Secretary of State, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to implement resolutions adopted by the IATTC. The Secretary's authority to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.
        IATTC Conservation Decisions in 2013

        At its 85th Meeting, in June 2013, the IATTC adopted by consensus the Resolution on Collection and Analysis of Data on Fish-Aggregating Devices (FADs) (Resolution C-13-04). (Active resolutions of the IATTC are available at: http://www.iattc.org/ResolutionsActiveENG.htm.) Three measures in Section 4 of Resolution C-13-04 address the potential impacts of purse seine fishing operations on the sustainability of the whale shark. The first provision directs countries to prohibit setting any purse seine on a school of tuna associated with a live whale shark if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set. In the event that a whale shark is encircled by a purse seine net, the second and third provisions of Resolution C-13-04 direct countries to require that purse seine vessel operators ensure all reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safe release of the shark, and report the incident to the relevant governmental authority, including the number of individual whale sharks, details of how and why the encirclement happened, where it occurred, steps taken to ensure safe release, and an assessment of the life status of the whale shark on release (including whether the animal was released alive, but subsequently died). As per section 4, paragraph 16 of Resolution C-13-04, the whale shark provisions “shall enter into effect on July 1, 2014”. This effective date is necessary for the United States to fully satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC. The remaining provisions of Resolution C-13-04 pertaining to Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) data collection and identification will be addressed in a later rulemaking.
        Proposed Action
        This proposed rule, if adopted, would implement Resolution C-13-04 which includes conservation measures for whale sharks. The regulations would apply to owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels while fishing commercially for tuna in the Convention Area. The Department of State has approved implementation of Resolution C-13-04 by this rulemaking.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is as follows:

        It is extremely unlikely that this rulemaking will result in a significant change in fishing operations. According to observer data report summaries from the previous 10 years supplied by the IATTC, U.S. large (greater than 363 metric tons, or 400 short tons, in carrying capacity) purse seine vessels with 100 percent observer coverage in the EPO have had two interactions with whale sharks: Once each in 2006 and 2009. In both instances, the encirclement of the whale shark was incidental to a fish aggregating device (FAD) directed set, and the whale shark was released and presumed unharmed. No data exists for purse seine vessels smaller than 400 short tons carrying capacity having interactions with whale sharks. Given the rare occurrence of observed U.S. purse seine vessel incidental interactions with whale sharks in the EPO, and given whale sharks are not a target species of the tuna purse seine fishery and have no commercial value to tuna canneries, the proposed action is not expected to affect or change current operating procedures or result in a reduction in associated revenues.
        On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for finfish fishing from $4.0 million to $19.0 million, shellfish fishing from $4.0 million to $5.0 million, and other marine fishing from $4.0 million to $7.0 million. NMFS conducted its analysis for this action using the new size standards.
        Estimates of ex-vessel revenues in the U.S. purse seine fishery in the IATTC Convention Area since 2005, which would be indicative of current conditions, are confidential and may not be publicly disclosed because of the small number of vessels in the fishery. Since 2004, only two U.S. purse seine vessels in class sizes 1 to 6 have made landings each year on average. Only two U.S. purse seine vessels landed fish in this fishery from 2005 through 2008, thus the landings and revenue data from these years are confidential and may not be released. Based on historic and recent U.S. purse seine vessels listed on the IATTC Active Purse Seine Vessel Register, there are four class size 6 vessels and no class size 5 and 4 vessels likely to be affected by the rule in the near future. Two vessels transited through the IATTC Convention Area in 2010 but did not fish. Only three and two class size 6 vessels fished for tunas in IATTC Convention Area in 2011 and 2012, respectively. In 2013 there were 10 vessels registered to operate in the IATTC Convention Area, including the smaller purse seine vessels that typically fish for coastal pelagic species (e.g., sardines). The average annual per vessel revenue in 2013 for the registered vessels operating in the IATTC Convention Area has been below $19 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities, and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Based on the analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. Because the proposed action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared. NMFS solicits public comment on the analyses in light of the new size standards.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0387. Public reporting burden for whale shark interaction reporting is estimated to average ten 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. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) 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, nor shall any person be subject to a 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 300
          Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: June 3, 2014.
          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 300, subpart C is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

            Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 951-961 et seq.

        2. In § 300.22, paragraph (a) is redesignated as paragraph (a)(1), and paragraph (a) heading and paragraph (a)(2) are added as follows:

          § 300.22
          Eastern Pacific fisheries recordkeeping and written reports.
          (a) Logbooks.

           * * *
          (2) Whale shark encirclement reporting. The owner and operator of a purse seine fishing vessel of the United States that encircles a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) while fishing commercially in the Convention Area must ensure that the incident is recorded in the comment section of the Log that is required by this paragraph (a). The Log must describe, among other things: The number of individual whale sharks with which the vessel interacted, details of how and why the encirclement happened, where it occurred, steps taken to ensure safe release, and an assessment of the life status of the whale shark upon release (including whether the animal was released alive, but subsequently died).

        3. In § 300.24, paragraphs (v), (w), and (x) are added to read as follows:

          § 300.24
          Prohibitions.

          (v) Fail to maintain, submit, or ensure submission of a Log that includes all the information required in § 300.22(a).

          (w) Set or attempt to set a purse seine on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in contravention of § 300.25(e)(5).
          (x) Fail to release a whale shark encircled in a purse seine net of a fishing vessel as required in § 300.25(e)(6)

        4. In § 300.25, paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6) are added to read as follows:

          § 300.25
          Eastern Pacific fisheries management.

          (e)  * * *

          (5) Owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States fishing commercially for tuna in the Convention Area may not set or attempt to set a purse seine on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set or the attempted set.

          (6) The crew, operator, and owner of a fishing vessel of the United States fishing commercially for tuna in the Convention Area must release as soon as possible, any whale shark that is encircled in a purse seine net, and must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release.

      [FR Doc. 2014-13267 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 147
        [EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154; FRL-10015-00-OW]
        State of New Mexico Underground Injection Control Program; Primacy Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve an application from the State of New Mexico under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to revise the state's existing Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for Class I injection wells located within the state, except those in Indian country. New Mexico has revised the state's UIC Class I program regulations to remove the current ban on Class I injection wells and establish new permit conditions, oversight, and enforcement to safely manage Class I hazardous waste disposal wells.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only): EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kyle Carey, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2322; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address: carey.kyle@epa.gov, or Evelyn Rosborough, Region VI Library (6WD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270; telephone number: (214) 665-7515; fax: (214) 665-6490; email address: rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Public Participation
        A. Written Comments

        Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154, at https://www.regulations.gov or other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. 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. Contact EPA if you want to submit CBI; see FOR INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

        The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

        The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
        B. Participation in the Public Hearing
        Please note that EPA may deviate from its typical approach because the President has declared a national emergency. Because of current CDC recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA may not be able to hold in-person public meetings at this time.

        Confirmation or cancellation of the public hearing will be announced on November 27, 2020 and on EPA Region VI's website at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/new-mexico-proposed-uic-program-revision-class-i-injection-wells. For information regarding the public hearing, including a request to hold a hearing, or to speak at the hearing, please contact Evelyn Rosborough, Region VI Library (6WD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270; or telephone: (214) 665-7515; fax: (214) 665-6490; email: rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov.

        If requested, the public hearing may be held at the Wendell Chino Building (Porter Hall, 1st floor), 1220 South St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 or at the New Mexico State Capitol, 490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87501. EPA may change the format and the timing of the public hearing (i.e., a virtual hearing held during regular business hours) if appropriate to protect public health in the face of COVID-19-risks. EPA will publish notice of any such change at least seven days prior to the hearing date exclusively at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/new-mexico-proposed-uic-program-revision-class-i-injection-wells.

        C. Public Outreach

        On October 13, 2020, a public notice announcing this proposed approval, request for public comment, and notice of a public hearing to be held on November 27, 2020, will be published in the Albuquerque Journal, the Roswell Daily Record, the Gallup Independent, and posted to EPA Region VI's website at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/new-mexico-proposed-uic-program-revision-class-i-injection-wells. In addition, EPA will email a link to the document published in the Federal Register to a statewide list of interested stakeholders.
        II. Introduction

        EPA approved the State of New Mexico's UIC program as meeting the requirements for primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for Class I, III, IV, and V injection wells, under Section 1422 of the SDWA, on July 11, 1983. The State of New Mexico has revised their UIC Class I program regulations to remove the current ban on Class I hazardous waste wells and establish new permit conditions, oversight, and enforcement to safely manage Class I wells, except those in Indian country. EPA considers this to be a substantial program revision and therefore subject to the procedures specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 145.32(b)(2). EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's revision to its Class I program. If approved, EPA would make conforming changes to 40 CFR 147.1601 to reflect New Mexico's revised Class I program.
        EPA will continue to oversee the State of New Mexico's administration of UIC Class I, III, IV, and V programs as authorized under the SDWA. Part of EPA's oversight responsibility includes the review of required state quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8.
        III. Legal Authorities
        These proposed regulations are being promulgated under the authority of Sections 1422 and 1450 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h-1 and 300j-9.
        A. Revision of State UIC Programs
        As required by Section 1421 of the SDWA, EPA promulgated minimum requirements at 40 CFR part 145 for effective state UIC programs to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Under Section 1422 of the SDWA, once EPA approves a state UIC program, the state has primary enforcement responsibility for underground water sources. A state may revise its UIC program as provided under 40 CFR 145.32(a) and by following the procedures described under 40 CFR 145.32(b), which require the state to submit a modified program description, an Attorney General's statement, a Memorandum of Agreement, or other such documentation as EPA determines to be necessary under the circumstances (40 CFR 145.32(b)(1)).
        B. Program Revision Effective Date
        A program revision becomes effective upon approval of the Administrator (40 CFR 145.32(b)(4)). All revisions to the state UIC program would be federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision and 40 CFR part 147 codification. Consistent with EPA Guidance 16,1
           EPA considers state-initiated program revisions to permit a formerly banned activity under the State of New Mexico Class I UIC program to be a substantial program revision. Under EPA regulations, this means there is an opportunity for public comment and to request a public hearing (40 CFR 145.32(b)(2)).

            1 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-02/documents/attorneygeneralsstatement-31july1981.pdf.

        C. Indian Country
        EPA's approval of the State of New Mexico's program revision to remove the prohibition on hazardous waste injection disposal under the SDWA UIC Class I program does not extend to Indian lands. Pursuant to EPA's UIC regulations at 40 CFR 144.3, Indian lands “means `Indian country' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.” EPA, or eligible Indian tribes, as appropriate, will retain responsibilities under the SDWA UIC program for Class I, III, IV, and V injection wells in Indian country in the State of New Mexico.
        IV. State of New Mexico's Application
        A. Notice of Completion

        On May 2, 2019, EPA determined that the Agency had received a complete UIC program revision application from the State of New Mexico, in which the state requested approval of its revised UIC regulations for Class I injection wells. The full application and supplemental materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov in EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154; and a copy of the application can be accessed for inspection and copying at: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270, by contacting Evelyn Rosborough, telephone number: (214) 665-7515; fax: (214) 665-6490; email address: rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov. Public comments are requested, and a public hearing will be held if requests are received within 45 days of publication of this document (see the “Public Participation” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for further information on how to request a public hearing).
        The UIC program revision application package from the State of New Mexico includes revisions of: (1) The description of the state's UIC program (40 CFR 145.23); (2) all applicable state statutes, regulations, and forms (40 CFR 145.22(a)(5)); (3) the Attorney General's statement that the state has adequate legal authority to carry out the program described and to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 145; and (4) the Memorandum of Agreement between the State of New Mexico and EPA's Region VI Administrator (40 CFR 145.25).
        B. Public Participation Activities Conducted by the State of New Mexico
        On May 15, 2015, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC or Commission) published a public notice of the Commission's intent to adopt amendments to the WQCC rules governing underground injection control to authorize the State of New Mexico to allow the approval of Class I hazardous waste injection wells, but only for petroleum refineries disposing the waste generated at the refinery. The public notice was published in 15 newspapers across the State of New Mexico. Written comments on the proposed rulemaking changes were accepted between May 15, 2015, and July 14, 2015. The public hearing was held on July 14, 2015, before both a WQCC hearing officer and the full Commission. Prior to the hearing, five technical witnesses from the Navajo Nation and one from New Mexico Oil Conservation Division pre-filed written testimony. At the hearing, in addition to the technical witnesses, several members of the public, including local elected officials, provided written or oral testimony in favor of the proposed rule changes. There was no testimony, written or oral, in opposition to the proposal.
        V. Incorporation by Reference

        In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the State of New Mexico's UIC program to permit Class I hazardous waste injection wells in the state, except those in Indian lands. New Mexico's statutes and supporting documentation are publicly available in EPA's Docket at EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0154. This action proposes to amend 40 CFR part 147 and incorporate by reference EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. EPA will continue to administer the UIC program for all well classes within Indian lands.
        If EPA approves and finalizes this action by rule, the provisions of New Mexico's statutes and regulations that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of UIC Class I hazardous waste wells will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1601 as described in the regulatory text. Provisions of the New Mexico's statutes and regulations that contain standards, requirements, and procedures applicable to owners or operators of Class I, III, IV, and V injection were incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1601 through prior EPA rules but are being reapproved for this new format. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be enforceable by EPA pursuant to the SDWA section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e).

        In order to better serve the public, EPA is reformatting the codification of EPA-approved New Mexico SDWA section 1422 UIC program statutes and regulations for well Classes I, III, IV, and V. Instead of codifying the New Mexico statutes and regulations as separate paragraphs, EPA will be incorporating by reference a compilation that contains “EPA Approved New Mexico SDWA §  1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, and V,” dated July 8, 2020. This compilation is incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 147.1601 and is available at https://www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rule. For information about the availability of this material at the EPA, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
        A complete list of the New Mexico statutes and regulations contained in the compilation, titled “EPA Approved New Mexico SDWA §  1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, and V,” dated July 8, 2020, will also be codified in Table 1 to paragraph (a) at 40 CFR 147.1601.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it proposes to approve the State of New Mexico's UIC Program and state UIC programs are exempt from review.
        B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
        This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as state UIC Program revisions are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0042. Reporting or record-keeping requirements will be based on the State of New Mexico UIC Regulations, and the State of New Mexico is not subject to the PRA.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        The agency certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rulemaking would not impose any requirements on small entities as this rule (when finalized) would approve and codify the State of New Mexico's UIC program revisions. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. EPA's approval of the State of New Mexico's program revisions will not constitute a federal mandate because there is no requirement that a state establishes UIC regulatory programs and because the program is a state, rather than a federal program.
        F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action contains no federal mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks
        EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in Section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it proposes to approve existing the State of New Mexico's UIC program requirements.
        I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
        K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

        EPA has determined that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action would approve the State of New Mexico's revisions to its UIC Class I program.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147
          Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

          Andrew Wheeler,
          Administrator.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 147 as follows:

          PART 147—STATE, TRIBAL, AND EPA-ADMINISTERED UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS

        1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

        2. Amend § 147.1601 by:
        a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a) and (b);
        b. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (c)(3); and
        c. Revising paragraph (d).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 147.1601
          State-administered program—Class I, III, IV, and V wells.
          The UIC Program for Class I, III, IV, and V wells in the State of New Mexico except for those located on Indian lands, as defined under 40 CFR 144.3, is the program administered by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, the New Mexico Environment Department (formerly the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division), and the Oil Conservation Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and approved by EPA pursuant to section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The effective date of this program is August 10, 1983. A subsequent program revision application for Class I hazardous waste wells was approved by EPA pursuant to section 1422 of the SDWA; the effective date of this program [will be contingent on publication of the final rule]. The State-administered UIC programs for Classes I, III, IV, and V consist of the following elements, as submitted to EPA in the State's program applications.

            (a) Incorporation by reference. The requirements set forth in the State statutes and regulations approved by EPA for inclusion in “EPA-Approved New Mexico SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, and V,” dated July 8, 2020, and listed in the Table 1 to this paragraph (a) of this section are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable UIC program under the SDWA for the State of New Mexico. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the State of New Mexico's regulations that are incorporated by reference may be inspected at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004, or the Region VI, Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. If you wish to obtain materials from the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Water Docket at (202) 566-2426 or from the EPA Regional Office, please call (214) 665-8326. You may also inspect the materials 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 http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

            Table 1 to Paragraph (a)—EPA-Approved State of New Mexico SDWA § 1422 Underground Injection Control Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, III, IV, and V

              State citation
              Title/subject
              State effective date
              EPA approval date

              WQCC 82-1Sections 1-100 through 5-300
              New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission Regulations
              September 20, 1982
              July 11, 1983.

              New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 6, Part 2
              Ground and Surface Water Protection
              December 21, 2018
              [Date of publication and FR citation of the final rule].

          (b) Other laws. The following statutes and regulations, although not incorporated by reference, are also part of the approved State-administered UIC program:
          (1) Water Quality Act, New Mexico Statutes Annotated Sections 74-6-1 through 74-6-13 (1978 and Supp. 1982);
          (2) Geothermal Resources Conservation Act, New Mexico Statutes Annotated Sections 71-5-1 through 71-5-24 (1978 and Supp. 1982); and
          (3) Surface Mining Act, New Mexico Statutes Annotated Sections 69-25A-1 through 69-25A-35 (1978 and Supp. 1980).
          (c) Memorandum of Agreement.

          (3) Amendment No. 1, Underground Injection Program Substitute Memorandum of Agreement Between the State of New Mexico and United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on May 2, 2019.
          (d) Statement of legal authority.

          (1) “Attorney General's Statement,” signed by the Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental Improvement Division, the Assistant Attorney General for Oil Conservation Division, and the Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Counsel for the Mining and Minerals Division, undated, submitted December 8, 1982;
          (2) Attorney General's Statement for Program Revision of New Mexico UIC Program, signed by Bill Brancard, Special Assistant Attorney General, State of New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, submitted December 12, 2018.

      [FR Doc. 2020-21487 Filed 10-9-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0209; FRL-9921-60]
        Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0209, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

          • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this Action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
        • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
        • Animal production (NAICS code 112).
        • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
        • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
        II. What action is the Agency taking?
        EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.

        Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

        As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

          PP 3F8210. Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.435 for residues of the insecticide, deltamethrin [(1R, 3R)-3(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-carboxylic acid (S)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ester] and its major metabolites trans-deltamethrin [(s)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(1R, 3S)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate] and alpha-R-deltamethrin [(R)-alphacyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(1R, 3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on food and feed commodities following wide-area mosquito adulticide applications at at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). High performance liquid chromatography/triple stage quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical and its cis and trans isomers.

          Authority:
          21 U.S.C. 346a.

          Dated: January 20, 2015.
          Susan Lewis,
          Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

      [FR Doc. 2015-01465 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        45 CFR Part 153
        [CMS-9913-P]
        RIN 0938-AU23
        Amendments to the HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Data Validation Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Program
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 11703, appearing on pages 33595-33617, in the issue of Tuesday, June 2, 2020, make the following changes:

        1. On page 33600, in the first column, on the third and fourth lines, the equation should read “If GFR
          G,i > UB
          G or GFR
          G,i < LB
          G, And if Freq_EDGE
          G,i ≥ 30”

        2. On the same page, in the second column, in the seventh and eighth lines following the center-set equation, should read “AdjRS
          i,e = EdgeRS
          i,e * (1 − Adjustment
          i,e)”.

        3. On page 33608, in the first column, on the second line, the equation should read “GFR
          G,i = z
          G,i * Sd{GFR
          G} + μ{GFR
          G}”.

        4. On page 33611, in the third column, on the first line, the equation should read “b
          r = outerZ
          r − a * (outerZ
          r) = outerZ
          r * (1 − a)”.

      [FR Doc. C1-2020-11703 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU51
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analyses.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii (Braunton's milk-vetch) and Pentachaeta lyonii (Lyon's pentachaeta) and the availability of the draft economic analyses of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $91.87 million over a 20-year period (approximately $8.11 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta lyonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $121.21 million over a 20-year period (approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analyses. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until August 21, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address.
          3. You may fax your comments to 805/644-3958.
          4. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: fw82plantsch@fws.gov, or to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. For directions on how to file comments electronically, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by one of the alternate methods mentioned above.

          Copies of the draft economic analyses and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura or from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the address and contact numbers above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Diane Noda, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in
            ADDRESSES (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation (70 FR 68982; November 10, 2005) and on our draft economic analyses of the proposed designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat, as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Astralagus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii habitat, and what areas that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designations and why and what areas that were not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Additional information on areas which could be excluded from the final designation, specifically in Orange County;

        (5) Information on whether the following should be included as a primary constituent element (PCE) for Astragalus brauntonii: Plant communities in areas that are ≥600 meters (m) in diameter, which is the minimum size needed to support associated insect pollinators (e.g., bees and wasps), and seed dispersers (e.g., insects and small mammals);

        (6) Information on whether the following should be included as a PCE for Pentachaeta lyonii: Plant communities in areas that are ≥600 m in diameter, which is the minimum size needed to support associated insect pollinators, specifically bees, wasps, and flies;

        (7) Information on whether, and, if so, how many of, the State and local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and how many were either already in place or enacted for other reasons;
        (8) Information on whether the draft economic analyses identify all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
        (9) Information on whether the draft economic analyses make appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (10) Information on whether the draft economic analyses correctly assess the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;

        (11) Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii critical habitat designation. The draft economic analyses indicate the potential economic value of areas within Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Based on this information, we may consider excluding portions of these areas from the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
        (12) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a disproportionate effect on small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;
        (13) Information on whether the draft economic analyses appropriately identify all costs that could result from the designation;
        (14) Information on whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments; and
        (15) Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area from the critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweighs the benefit of including those particular areas in the designation.
        The Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.

        All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the November 10, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 68982) need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analyses and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the draft economic analyses, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analyses, we may during the development of our final determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or not appropriate for exclusion.

        Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AU51” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments, and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES.

        Copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analyses are available on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/ventura/. You may also obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analyses from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or by calling 805/644-1766.

        Background

        We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii on November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68982). The proposed critical habitat totaled approximately 3,638 acres (ac) (1,471 hectares (ha)) for Astragalus brauntonii in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties, California; and 4,212 ac (1,703 ha) for Pentachaeta lyonii in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, California. Pursuant to the terms of a July 28, 2003, settlement agreement, we will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii on or before November 1, 2006.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 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 the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the November 10, 2005, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii (70 FR 68982), we have prepared an individual draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for Astragalus brauntonii and another for Pentachaeta lyonii.

        The current draft economic analyses estimate the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation on government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The draft economic analysis provides a measure of the total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) that will accrue from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of proposed critical habitat. The amount of surplus generated per housing unit is calculated as the market price of the new housing minus the variable costs of development and construction: Total expected surplus within the critical habitat unit is calculated by multiplying this expression by the expected number of housing units. For a further description of the methodology of these analyses, see section 3 (methodology) of draft economic analyses.
        The draft economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $91.87 million over a 20-year period (approximately $8.11 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta lyonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $121.21 million over a 20-year period (approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analyses measure lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development, and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on transportation projects, the energy industry, and Federal lands. The residential development industry is anticipated to experience the highest estimated costs as described in the draft economic analyses.

        The draft economic analyses consider the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. They further consider the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii in essential habitat areas. The draft analyses consider 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 (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
        These draft analyses also address how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, these draft analyses look retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date these two species were listed as endangered (January 29, 1997; 62 FR 4172) and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
        As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on these draft economic analyses, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Required Determinations—Amended
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. The draft economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $8.11 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta lyonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat. The residential development industry is anticipated to experience the highest estimated costs as described in the draft economic analyses. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.

        Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (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). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analyses of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; 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 Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

        In our draft economic analyses of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii and proposed designation of critical habitat. We determined from our draft analyses that the small business entities that may be affected are firms in the new home construction sector. Small business effects have been calculated on the total surplus generated from new housing construction within critical habitat. This assumption is conservative because it is the worst-case scenario of how critical habitat will affect small businesses. In the event that conservation is achieved without requiring developers to completely avoid critical habitat, impacts on small businesses will be lower.

        To estimate the number of firms potentially affected, these analyses use the following steps. First, they calculate the number of homes built by small businesses annually. Average revenues for a small construction firm are $694,000 annually. The mean new home price for the study area of these analyses is approximately $970,000 for Astragalus brauntonii and $920,000 for Pentachaeta lyonii. Small construction firms are assumed to build one new home per year. Second, they calculate the proportion of new home construction that would be undertaken by small businesses. Prior analyses of permitting data in Sacramento County found that 22 percent of building permits for single family dwellings were issued to builders classified as small businesses. A total of 156 new homes are projected to be built within Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over the next 20 years. Accordingly, 34 are projected to be built by small businesses. Since each firm builds one home per year, 34 small firms are potentially affected within Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over the 20-year time frame of this analysis. A total of 222 new homes are projected to be built within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat over the next 20 years. Accordingly, 49 are projected to be built by small businesses. Since each firm builds one home per year, 49 small firms are potentially affected within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat over the 20-year time frame of this analysis. These firms may be affected by activities associated with the conservation of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, inclusive of activities associated with listing, recovery, and critical habitat. Critical habitat is not expected to result in significant small business impacts. In the development of our final designation, we will explore potential alternatives to minimize impacts to any affected small business entities. These alternatives may include the exclusion of all or portions of the critical habitat units in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange counties, California.

        We do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii will result in a disproportionate effect to small business entities. However, we are seeking comment on potentially excluding areas from the final critical habitat designation if it is determined that there will be a substantial and significant impact to small real estate development businesses in the affected areas.
        The economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation vary widely even within a county. That is, the impacts of designation are frequently localized, which is sensible from an economic point of view and is consistent with the principles of urban economics. Housing prices vary over urban areas, typically declining as the location of the house becomes more remote. Large impacts may result from critical habitat if a particular area has a large fraction of developable land in critical habitat. Some areas have few alternate sites for development, or have highly rationed housing resulting in high prices. Any of these factors may cause the cost of critical habitat designation to increase. Please refer to our draft economic analyses of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 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. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

        (b) As discussed in the draft economic analyses of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, the impacts on nonprofits and small governments are expected to be small. There is no record of consultations between the Service and any of these governments since the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii were listed as endangered on January 29, 1997 (62 FR 4172). It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects will be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii will significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Takings

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

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

          Dated: July 7, 2006.
          Matt Hogan,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E6-11599 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P