        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1196]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.

          DATES:
          Comments are to be submitted on or before October 3, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1196, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail) luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail) luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
        Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.

          National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

          Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

          Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

          Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]
            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                Flooding source(s)
                Location of referenced elevation**
                * Elevation in feet (NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
                  (NAVD)
                  # Depth in feet
                  above ground
                  ⁁ Elevation in meters (MSL)

                Effective
                Modified
                Communities affected

                  Lake County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas

                Bull Creek (near Waukegan)
                Approximately 0.41 mile downstream of Sheridan Road
                +606
                +596
                City of Waukegan, Unincorporated Areas of Lake County, Village of Beach Park.

                Approximately 475 feet upstream of Lewis Avenue
                None
                +681

                Bull Creek 27th Street Tributary
                Approximately 0.51 mile downstream of 33rd Street
                None
                +622
                City of Zion, Village of Beach Park.

                Approximately 700 feet upstream of Lewis Avenue
                None
                +685

                Bull Creek North Branch
                Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of Wadsworth Road
                None
                +613
                City of Waukegan, City of Zion, Village of Beach Park.

                Approximately 200 feet upstream of Lewis Avenue
                None
                +683

                Glen Flora Tributary
                Approximately 540 feet upstream of Pond Loop Road
                None
                +585
                City of Waukegan.

                Approximately 0.51 mile upstream of Sheridan Road
                None
                +642

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Waukegan

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 North Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Waukegan, IL 60085.

                  City of Zion

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 2828 Sheridan Road, Zion, IL 60099.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Lake County

                Maps are available for inspection at the Lake County Courthouse, 18 North County Street, Waukegan, IL 60085.

                  Village of Beach Park

                Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 11270 West Wadsworth Road, Beach Park, IL 60099.

                  Bossier Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas

                Flat River
                Approximately 2.0 miles downstream of State Route 527
                +154
                +153
                City of Bossier City, Unincorporated Areas of Bossier Parish.

                Approximately 0.42 mile downstream of State Route 612 (Sligo Road)
                +156
                +155

                Red Chute Bayou
                At Smith Road
                +154
                +153
                Unincorporated Areas of Bossier Parish.

                Approximately 1,125 feet downstream of State Route 612 (Sligo Road)
                +156
                +157

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Bossier City

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 620 Benton Road, Bossier City, LA 71171.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Bossier Parish

                Maps are available for inspection at the Bossier Parish Courthouse, 204 Burt Boulevard, Benton, LA 71006.

                  Madison Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas

                Brushy Bayou
                At the downstream side of I-20
                None
                +80
                City of Tallulah, Village of Richmond.

                At the upstream side of I-20
                None
                +81

                Cypress Bayou
                Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of I-20
                None
                +81
                Village of Delta, Village of Mound.

                Approximately 428 feet upstream of U.S. Route 80
                None
                +85

                Ditch L-7CC-1
                Approximately 682 feet upstream of the Lower Roundaway Bayou confluence
                None
                +77
                City of Tallulah, Unincorporated Areas of Madison Parish, Village of Richmond.

                At the downstream side of State Route 601
                None
                +83

                Ditch L-7CC-2
                Approximately 440 feet downstream of I-20
                +77
                +78
                Unincorporated Areas of Madison Parish, Village of Richmond.

                At the downstream side of Burnside Road
                None
                +78

                Mississippi River
                Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of I-20
                None
                +102
                Village of Delta.

                Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of I-20
                None
                +103

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Tallulah

                Maps are available for inspection at 204 North Cedar Street, Tallulah, LA 71282.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Madison Parish

                Maps are available for inspection at 100 North Cedar Street, Tallulah, LA 71282.

                  Village of Delta

                Maps are available for inspection at 200 1st Street, Delta, LA 71233.

                  Village of Mound

                Maps are available for inspection at 100 North Cedar Street, Tallulah, LA 71282.

                  Village of Richmond

                Maps are available for inspection at 598 Wood Street, Richmond, LA 71282.

                  Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas

                Basketball Pond
                Entire shoreline
                None
                +5421
                City of Albuquerque.

                Glenrio Storm Drain (Shallow ponding area at the intersection of Palisades Drive Northwest and Glenrio Drive Northwest)
                Entire shoreline
                None
                +5095
                City of Albuquerque.

                Glenrio Storm Drain
                Approximately 650 feet downstream of the intersection of Hanover Road Northwest and 54th Street Northwest
                None
                +5095
                City of Albuquerque.

                At the intersection of 56th Street Northwest and Hanover Road Northwest
                None
                +5095

                Kirtland Detention Pond
                Entire shoreline
                None
                +5359
                City of Albuquerque.

                McKnight Storm Drain
                Sheet flow area between Cyndi Court Northeast and Embudo Channel
                #1
                #3
                City of Albuquerque.

                Shallow ponding area southeast of the intersection of Alameda Boulevard Northwest and the Albuquerque Main Line Canal
                Entire shoreline
                +5001
                +4997
                Unincorporated Areas of Bernalillo County.

                Sheet Flow along Candelaria Avenue, Northeast
                Sheet flow area along Candelaria Avenue, Northeast between Vermont Street Northeast and Louisiana Boulevard Northeast
                None
                #1
                City of Albuquerque.

                Sheet Flow between San Mateo Boulevard Southeast and Gibson Boulevard Southeast
                At the intersection of San Mateo Boulevard Southeast and Kathryn Avenue, Southeast
                None
                #1
                City of Albuquerque.

                At the intersection of Gibson Boulevard Southeast and Cardenas Drive Southeast
                None
                #1

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Albuquerque

                Maps are available for inspection at the Planning Department, Development and Building Services Division, 600 2nd Street Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87103.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Bernalillo County

                Maps are available for inspection at the Bernalillo County Public Works Division, 2400 Broadway Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

                  Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas

                Arroyo Barranca
                Approximately 100 feet upstream of the Arroyo Mascaras confluence
                None
                +7022
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 100 feet upstream of Camino Del Norte
                None
                +7338

                Arroyo De La Paz
                At the Arroyo De Los Antores confluence
                None
                +6722
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Rodeo Road
                None
                +6802

                Arroyo De La Piedra
                Approximately 300 feet downstream of Vallecita Drive
                +7099
                +7103
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Barranca Drive
                None
                +7435

                Arroyo De Los Amigos
                Approximately 100 feet upstream of the Arroyo De Los Chamisos confluence
                None
                +6852
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Saint Michaels Drive
                None
                +7016

                Arroyo De Los Antores
                Approximately 200 feet upstream of the Arroyo De Los Chamisos confluence
                None
                +6701
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 600 feet upstream of Zia Road
                None
                +6738

                Arroyo De Los Antores Ponding Area
                Entire shoreline
                None
                +6750
                City of Santa Fe.

                Arroyo De Los Antores Sheet Flow
                Sheet flow areas along the Arroyo De Los Antores (Lowest Flood Depth)
                None
                #1
                City of Santa Fe.

                Sheet flow areas along the Arroyo De Los Antores (Highest Flood Depth)
                None
                #2

                Arroyo En Medio
                Approximately 500 feet upstream of the Arroyo De Los Chamisos confluence
                None
                +6754
                City of Santa Fe, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Cloudstone Drive
                None
                +7510

                Arroyo Hondo
                At the Arroyo De Los Chamisos confluence
                None
                +6098
                City of Santa Fe, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 70 feet upstream of County Road 67F
                None
                +7428

                Arroyo Hondo Split Flow
                Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Rancho Viejo Boulevard
                None
                +6400
                Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Arroyo Viejo Road
                None
                +6483

                Arroyo Ranchito
                Approximately 150 feet upstream of the Arroyo De La Piedra confluence
                None
                +7043
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 600 feet upstream of Camino Encantado
                None
                +7320

                Arroyo Saiz
                At the upstream side of Avenida Primera
                None
                +7191
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Avenida Primera
                None
                +7339

                Big Tesuque Creek
                At the Rio Tesuque confluence
                None
                +6930
                Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of County Road 72A
                None
                +7234

                Canada Ancha
                Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the Santa Fe River confluence
                +7193
                +7194
                City of Santa Fe, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of La Entrada
                None
                +7780

                East Arroyo De La Piedra
                At the Arroyo De La Piedra confluence
                None
                +7199
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Calle Conejo
                None
                +7585

                Little Tesuque Creek
                At the Rio Tesuque confluence
                None
                +6930
                Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 100 feet upstream of Bishops Lodge Road
                None
                +7140

                Northeast Arroyo De Los Pinos
                Approximately 80 feet upstream of 6th Street
                None
                +6828
                City of Santa Fe.

                Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Luisa Street
                None
                +6955

                Rio Tesuque
                Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Tesuque Village Road
                None
                +6693
                Pueblo of Tesuque, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                At the Big Tesuque Creek and Little Tesuque Creek confluence
                None
                +6930

                Santa Cruz River
                Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of State Route 106
                +5671
                +5670
                City of Espanola, Santa Clara Indian Reservation, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of State Route 106
                +5701
                +5702

                Unnamed Stream 31
                At the Rio Tesuque confluence
                None
                +6741
                City of Santa Fe, Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County.

                Approximately 500 feet upstream of Sangre De Cristo Drive
                None
                +7105

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Espanola

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 405 North Paseo de Onate, Espanola, NM 87532.

                  City of Santa Fe

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 87504.

                  Pueblo of Tesuque

                Maps are available for inspection at the Pueblo of Tesuque Governor's Office, TP 804 Building 4, Santa Fe, NM 87506.

                  Santa Clara Indian Reservation

                Maps are available for inspection at the Santa Clara Indian Reservation Governor's Office, 1 Kee Street, Espanola, NM 87532.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Santa Fe County

                Maps are available for inspection at the Santa Fe County Building, 102 Grant Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 87504.

              (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)

            Dated: June 15, 2011.
            Sandra K. Knight,
            Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2011-16640 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510; FRL-8334-3]
        RIN 2060-AO46
        Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting and Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to amend the national emission standards for primary copper smelting area sources and secondary copper smelting area sources published on January 23, 2007. The amendments to the national emission standards for primary copper smelting area sources clarify when plants must exhaust gases to a control device and what control devices may be used for this requirement; numbering errors are also corrected. The amendments to the national emission standards for secondary copper smelting area sources clarify the date which defines a new copper smelter and correct a cross-referencing error.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by August 2, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510 by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-1741.
          • Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Four Area Source Categories Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
          • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919) 541-3207; e-mail address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

          I. Why is EPA issuing the proposed rule?
          II. Does this action apply to me?
          III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
          A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
          B. Paperwork Reduction Act
          C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
          D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
          E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
          F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
          G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
          H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
          I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
          J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

        I. Why is EPA issuing the proposed rule?
        In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are issuing these corrections as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2944; 72 FR 2952), we issued the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEE) and the NESHAP for secondary copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFFF). This document proposes to make certain technical and editorial corrections to both rules. We have published a direct final rule correcting the area source NESHAP in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
        If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on the proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

        We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For information about commenting on the rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
        II. Does this action apply to me?
        Categories and entities potentially regulated by the proposed rule include:

            Category
            NAICS code 1

            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            331411
            Primary copper smelting area source facilities that produce copper from copper sulfide ore concentrates using pyrometallurgical techniques.

            331423
            Secondary copper smelting area source facilities that process copper scrap in a blast furnace and converter or use another pyrometallurgical purification process to produce anode copper from copper scrap, including low-grade copper scrap.

            1 North American Industry Classification System.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11146 of subpart EEEEEE (NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources) or 40 CFR 63.11153 of subpart FFFFFF (NESHAP for Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
        III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

        In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA is proposing this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections in the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not include any information collection requirement.
        Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 employees for primary copper smelting and less than 750 employees for secondary copper smelting); (2) a government jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.
        After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that small businesses in these area source categories will not incur any adverse impacts because EPA is taking this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections in the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources, and these corrections would not create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are associated with the proposed corrections to the two NESHAP. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed corrections on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        EPA has determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA is taking this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. No costs are associated with these proposed corrections. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The technical and editorial corrections proposed in this action contain no requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon them, and would not result in any expenditures by them or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”
        The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not impose requirements on State or local governments. They have no direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule.

        In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not impose requirements on tribal governments. They also have no direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
        EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the NESHAP for the primary and secondary copper smelting area sources are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        The proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        Executive Order 12848 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
        EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The technical and editorial corrections in the proposed rule do not change the level of control required by the NESHAP.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: June 27, 2007.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E7-12848 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-10016-73-OLEM]
        Proposed Deletions From the National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a Notice of Intent to partially delete four sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the states, through their designated state agencies, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, where applicable, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          The sites proposed for partial deletion, their location and media or areas proposed for deletion from the NPL are specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the Supplementary Information section of this document. The remaining media or areas of the sites will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

          DATES:
          Comments regarding this proposed listing must be submitted on or before December 21, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          EPA has established a docket for this action under the Docket Identification number included in Table 1 in the Supplementary Information section of this document. Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID number, by one of the following methods:
          • https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. The 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          • Email: Table 2 in the Supplementary Information section of this document provides an email address to submit public comments for each proposed deletion action.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to the Docket Identification number included in Table 1 in the Supplementary Information section of this document. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under the Docket Identification included in Table 1 in the Supplementary Information section of this document. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the corresponding Regional Records Centers. Locations, addresses, and phone numbers-of the Regional Records Centers follow.

        Regional Records Centers
        • Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mail code 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.
        • Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
        • Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
        • Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3160.

        The EPA is temporarily suspending Regional Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. 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.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          • Andrew Hass, U.S. EPA Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), hass.andrew@epa.gov, 215/814-2049

          • Karen Cibulskis, U.S. EPA Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), cibulskis.karen@epa.gov, 312/886-1843

          • David Wennerstrom, U.S. EPA Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), wennerstrom.david@epa.gov, 913/551-7996

          • Eric Canteenwala, U.S. EPA Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), Canteenwala.eric@epa.gov, 415/972-3932
          • Chuck Sands, U.S. EPA Headquarters, sands.charles@epa.gov, 703/603-8857

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Introduction
          II. NPL Deletion Criteria
          III. Deletion Procedures
          IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

        I. Introduction

        EPA is issuing a Notice of Intent to partially delete four sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which EPA created under section 105 of the CERCLA statute of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). These partial deletions are proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

        EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the portion of each site proposed for deletion and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria, including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
        ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
        Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures apply to the partial deletion of each of the four sites in this proposed rule:
        (1) EPA consulted with the respective state before developing this Notice of Intent for partial deletion.
        (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this proposed action prior to publication of it today.
        (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.
        (4) The states, through their designated state agencies, have concurred with the proposed partial deletion action.

        (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for partial deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation near each of the four sites. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for partial deletion.
        (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion dockets, made these items available for public inspection, and copying at the Regional Records Centers identified above.

        If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to partially delete each site. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to partially delete the site, the EPA will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.
        Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
        IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
        The sites to be partially deleted from the NPL, the location of the site, and docket number with information including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete are specified in Table 1. The NCP permits activities to occur at a deleted site or that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the site are entered in Table 1, if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1 = site has continued operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2 = site receives continued monitoring, and 3 = site five-year reviews are conducted.

          Table 1

            Site name
            City/county, state
            Type
            Docket No.
            Footnote

            Fort Ord
            Marina, CA
            Partial
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010
            1, 2, 3.

            Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
            Gary, IN
            Partial
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002
            1, 2, 3.

            Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
            Kellogg, IA
            Partial
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005
            1, 3.

            Palmerton Zinc Pile
            Palmerton, PA
            Partial
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002

        Table 2 includes a description of the area, media or Operable Units (OUs) of the NPL site proposed for partial deletion from the NPL, and an email address to which public comments may be submitted if the commenter does not comment using https://www.regulations.gov.

          Table 2

            Site name
            Media/parcels for partial deletion
            Email address for public comments

            Fort Ord
            Soil media of approximately 11,961 acres

              clancy.maeve@epa.gov.

            Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
            Soil media of Landfill Property and identified adjacent parcels of OU1 land

              deletions@usepa.onmicrosoft.com.

            Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm
            OU 1 North Farm

              wennerstrom.david@epa.gov.

            Palmerton Zinc Pile
            117 parcels in OU3

              hass.andrew@epa.gov.

        EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

          Authority:
           33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: November 6, 2020.
          Dana Stalcup,
          Acting Office Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.

      [FR Doc. 2020-25622 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0008; 45000030114]
        RIN 1018-AX42

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Allium munzii (Munz's onion) and Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley Crownscale)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction and reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the April 17, 2012, proposed revised designations of critical habitat for Allium munzii (Munz's onion) and Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley crownscale) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designations of critical habitat for A. munzii and A. c. var. notatior 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 revised designations, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Finally, we correct some errors regarding the elevations of habitat necessary for conservation of A. munzii. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before October 11, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0008 or by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

            Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R8-ES-2012-0008, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
          (2) By Hard Copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0008; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011, by telephone 760-431-9440, or by facsimile 760-431-9624. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed revised designations of critical habitat for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior that was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2012 (77 FR 23008), our changes to the primary constituent elements section of the proposed rule, our DEA of the proposed designations, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to 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 of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The distribution of Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior;

        (b) The amount and distribution of Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior habitat; and
        (c) What areas within the geographical area occupied by the taxa at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the taxa we should include in the designation and why; and
        (d) What areas outside the geographical area occupied by the taxa at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the taxa and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

        (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior and proposed critical habitat.
        (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from including any particular area in the final designations. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designations that are subject to these impacts.

        (6) Which specific lands covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) or other permitted HCPs and proposed for designation as critical habitat should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and, for those specific areas, how benefits of exclusion from the critical habitat designations would outweigh the benefits of inclusion in the designations. We are currently considering excluding, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, all lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP or other permitted HCPs and Cooperative Agreements as described in the proposed rule (see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts in the proposed designations of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2012 (77 FR 23008)).
        (7) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
        (8) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        (9) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designations.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77 FR 23008) during the initial comment period from April 17, 2012, to June 18, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat 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 proposed do not meet the definition of critical habitat, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0008, 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).
        Background

        This is a notice of availability announcing the reopening of the public comment period on the April 17, 2012, proposed revised designations of critical habitat for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior and the availability of a DEA of the proposed designations of critical habitat for A. munzii and A. c. var. notatior.

        Allium munzii

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Allium munzii in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning A. munzii, refer to the following documents that published in the Federal Register:
        • Proposed designation of critical habitat (77 FR 23008; April 17, 2012);
        • Proposed listing rule (59 FR 64812; December 15, 1994);
        • Final listing rule (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998);
        • The first proposed designation of critical habitat (69 FR 31569; June 4, 2004); and
        • The subsequent final critical habitat rule (70 FR 33015; June 7, 2005).
        These documents and the 5-year review for A. munzii, signed on June 17, 2009, are available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/, on the ECOS Web site for Munz's onion at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2X0, or from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Previous Federal Actions—Allium munzii
        Please see the final listing rule for Allium munzii for a description of previous Federal actions through October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975). At the time of listing, we concluded that designation of critical habitat for A. munzii was not prudent because such designation would not benefit the species. On June 4, 2004, we published a proposed rule to designate 227 ac (92 ha) of critical habitat for A. munzii on Federal land (Cleveland National Forest) in western Riverside County, California (69 FR 31569). On June 7, 2005, we published a final rule designating 176 ac (71 ha) of land as critical habitat for A. munzii (70 FR 33015).

        On March 22, 2006, we announced the initiation of the 5-year review for Allium munzii and requested information from the public (71 FR 14538). The A. munzii 5-year review was completed on June 17, 2009, and recommended no change to the endangered status of A. munzii.

        On October 2, 2008, a complaint was filed against the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Service by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD v. Kempthorne, No. 08-CV-01348 (S.D. Cal.)) challenging our final critical habitat designation for Allium munzii. In an order dated March 24, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, adopted a Stipulated Settlement Agreement that was entered into by all parties. The agreement stipulates that the Service will reconsider critical habitat designations for both A. munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior and shall submit to the Federal Register proposed revised critical habitat determinations for both plants by October 7, 2011. An extension for the completion of the new proposed determinations was granted on September 14, 2011; the new submission date to the Federal Register was April 6, 2012. Until the effective date of the final determinations (to be submitted to the Federal Register on or before April 6, 2013), the existing final critical habitat designations for A. munzii and A. c. var. notatior remain in place.

        On April 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Allium munzii (77 FR 23008). We proposed to designate approximately 889 acres (ac) (360 hectares (ha)) in 5 units containing 13 subunits located in Riverside County, California, as critical habitat. A legal notice announcing the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and opening of the 60-day public comment period was prepared by the Service and published in the The Press-Enterprise on April 27, 2012. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a combined final critical habitat rule for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior on or before April 6, 2013.

          Atriplex coronata var. notatior

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning A. c. var. notatior, refer to the following documents that published in the Federal Register:
        • Proposed designation of critical habitat (77 FR 23008; April 17, 2012);

        • Proposed listing rule (59 FR 64812; December 15, 1994);

        • Final listing rule (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998);
        • The first proposed designation of critical habitat (69 FR 59844; October 6, 2004); and
        • The subsequent final critical habitat rule (70 FR 59952; October 13, 2005).
        These documents and the 5-year review for A. coronata var. notatior, completed on March 31, 2008, are available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/, on our ECOS Web page for San Jacinto Valley crownscale at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2ZR, or from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Previous Federal Actions—Atriplex coronata var. notatior
        Please see the final listing rule for Atriplex coronata var. notatior for a description of previous Federal actions through October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), including proposed critical habitat in 1994 (59 FR 64812; December 15, 1994). At the time of the final listing rule in 1998, the Service withdrew the proposed critical habitat designation based on the taxon's continued decline and determined that designation of critical habitat was not prudent, indicating that no benefit over that provided by listing would result from such designation (63 FR 54991; October 13, 1998).

        On October 6, 2004, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior and identified 15,232 ac (6,164 ha) of habitat that met the definition of critical habitat (69 FR 59844). However, we concluded in the 2004 proposed rule under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that the benefits of excluding lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP outweighed the benefits of including them as critical habitat, and, consequently, no lands were proposed for designation as critical habitat in the proposed rule. On October 13, 2005, we published a final critical habitat determination for A. c. var. notatior (70 FR 59952); there was no change from the proposed rule. We concluded that all 15,232 ac (6,136 ha) of habitat meeting the definition of critical habitat were located either within our estimate of the areas to be conserved and managed by the approved Western Riverside County MSHCP on existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands, or within areas where the MSHCP would ensure that future projects would not adversely alter essential hydrological processes, and all areas were excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

        On March 22, 2006, we announced the initiation of the 5-year review for Atriplex coronata var. notatior and requested information from the public (71 FR 14538). The 5-year review was completed on March 31, 2008, and recommended no change to the endangered status of A. c. var. notatior.

        On October 2, 2008, a complaint was filed against the DOI and the Service by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD v. Kempthorne, No. 08-CV-01348 (S.D. Cal.)) challenging our final critical habitat determinations for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior (see Previous Federal Actions—Allium Munzii section above for a detailed account of this lawsuit and settlement agreement).

        On April 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Atriplex coronata var. notatior (77 FR 23008). We proposed to designate approximately 8,020 ac (3,246 ha) in 3 units located in Riverside County, California, as critical habitat. A legal notice announcing the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and opening of the 60-day public comment period was prepared by the Service and published in The Press-Enterprise on April 27, 2012. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a combined final critical habitat rule for Atriplex coronata var. notatior and Allium munzii on or before April 6, 2013.
        Critical Habitat
        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 the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification (collectively referred to as “adverse modification”) of the designated critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions that may affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

        We are revising the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for Allium munzii to clarify primary constituent elements (PCEs) (2)(i)(b) and (2)(ii) regarding elevations necessary for conservation of A. munzii. We stated in the proposed rule that A. munzii is found in Riverside County generally between the elevations of 1,200 to 2,700 ft (366 to 823 m) above mean sea level. Allium munzii is also found in Riverside County (Unit 3: Elsinore Peak) at an elevation ranging from 3,200 to 3,500 feet (ft) (975 to 1,067 meters (m)). Therefore, PCE (2)(i)(b) should read, “Generally between the elevations of 1,200 ft to 3,500 ft (366 to 1,067 m), above mean sea level,” and PCE (2)(ii) should read, “Outcrops of igneous rocks (pyroxenite) on rocky-sandy loam or clay soils within Riversidean sage scrub, generally between the elevations of 1,200 to 3,500 ft (366 to 1,067 m), above mean sea level.”
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.

        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. In the case of Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of these taxa and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for these taxa due to protection from adverse modification of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.

        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan.

        The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designations, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat designations, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).
        Draft Economic Analysis

        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designations for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior. The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections afforded to A. munzii and A. c. var. notatior (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat for the two taxa. In other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, Framework for the Analysis, of the DEA.

        The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designations for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designations; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing.
        The DEA considers quantification of economic impacts of Allium munzii conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Development; (2) agricultural operations; (3) transportation; (4) fire management; (5) mining (clay); and (6) recreational activities (Industrial Economics, Incorporated [IEC] 2012, p. 1-6).
        The DEA considers quantification of economic impacts of Atriplex coronata var. notatior conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Development; (2) agricultural operations; (3) transportation; (4) fire management; (5) flood control; and (6) utilities (IEC 2012, p. 1-6).

        Because of the substantial baseline protections already afforded Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior under the Act, and the conservation plans, partnerships, or agreements developed and being implemented as a result of the listing of the taxa, the incremental effects analysis in the DEA focuses on quantifying the following categories: (1) Activities that the Service considers threats to Allium munzii or its habitat that are not addressed by existing conservation plans (i.e., clay mining), (2) activities occurring within A. munzii proposed critical habitat Unit 3 (Elsinore Peak), an area not managed under an existing conservation plan, and (3) administrative costs associated with future section 7 consultations for both taxa (IEC 2012, p. 4-1).

        The DEA indicates that the total cost that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for both plants is $166,000 in present-value terms, assuming a seven percent discount rate. The total cost that may result from the proposed designation for Allium munzii is $92,000 over the 20-year period of the analysis in present-value terms, assuming a seven percent discount rate. In areas not currently being considered for exclusion from A. munzii critical habitat (Unit 3), incremental costs are estimated at $25,000 in present-value terms, assuming a seven percent discount rate. In areas currently being considered for exclusion from A. munzii critical habitat, incremental costs are estimated at $67,000 (IEC 2012, p. 4-2).

        The total cost that may result from the proposed designation for Atriplex coronata var. notatior is $74,000 over the 20-year period of the analysis, in present-value terms assuming a seven percent discount rate. The entire proposed critical habitat for A. c. var. notatior is presently being considered for exclusion from the final designation. All of these incremental impacts consist entirely of administrative costs, including reinitiations of programmatic consultations and additional effort of addressing adverse modification as part of future section 7 consultations for activities that may affect the two taxa or their habitat (IEC 2012, p. 4-2).

        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of Allium munzii or Atriplex coronata var. notatior.

        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our April 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 23008), 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 designations and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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). We also clarify below the information concerning E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designations, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; 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 these designations 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 revised designations of critical habitat for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as (1) Development, (2) agricultural operations, (3) transportation, (4) fire management, (5) mining (clay), (6) recreational activities, (7) flood control, and (8) utilities. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed 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 only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the A. munzii and A. c. var. notatior are present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the taxa. If we finalize these proposed revised critical habitat designations, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

        In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed revised designations of critical habitat for Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior. The Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Lake Mathews MSHCP were evaluated for this analysis. For the Western Riverside MSHCP, seven small jurisdictions were identified (IEC 2012, p. A-7). However, applying a conservative assumption that all of the third-party costs would be borne by a single small entity, the one-time impact of reinitiation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP was 0.2 percent of reported annual revenues (IEC 2012, p. A-8). For the Lake Mathews MSHCP with only one small entity identified, a similar assumption indicated that a single small entity would bear a one-time impact of 0.06 percent of reported annual revenues for reinitiation of this conservation plan (IEC 2012, p. A-8). Please refer to the DEA for a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed revised designations would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and our files. We have identified eight small entities that may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat designations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 77 FR 23008, April 17, 2012, as follows:

          PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
          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. Amend § 17.96(a) by revising the proposed entry for “Allium munzii (Munz's onion)” in paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (ii) to read as follows:

            § 17.96
            Critical habitat—plants.
            (a) Flowering plants.

            Family Alliaceae: Allium munzii (Munz's onion)

            (2) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (B) Generally between the elevations of 1,200 to 3,500 ft (366 to 1,067 m) above mean sea level;

            (ii) Outcrops of igneous rocks (pyroxenite) on rocky-sandy loam or clay soils within Riversidean sage scrub, generally between the elevations of 1,200 to 3,500 ft (366 to 1,067 m) above mean sea level.

            Dated: August 28, 2012.
            Michael J. Bean,
            Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-22033 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P