        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU52
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period, notice of availability of draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, and amended Required Determinations.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), the availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment of the proposed designation of critical habitat, and an amended Required Determinations section of the proposal. The draft economic analysis estimates the potential total future costs to range from $175 million to $889 million in undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years. Discounted future costs are estimated to be from $125 million to $411 million over 20 years ($8.38 million to $27.6 million annually) using a 3 percent discount rate, or $99.9 million to $259 million over 20 years ($9.43 million to $24.4 million annually) using a 7 percent discount rate. The amended Required Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance with applicable statues and Executive Orders that we have deferred until the information from the draft economic analysis of this proposal was available. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, and the amended Required Determinations section.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until October 11, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:
          (1) E-mail: You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw6_lynx@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit e-mail comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
          (2) Mail or hand delivery/courier: You may submit written comments and information to Field Supervisor, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT, 59601.
          (3) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Lori Nordstrom, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone, 406-449-5225 extension 208).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx (lynx), published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68294), the clarification of the proposed critical habitat, published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2006 (71 FR 8258), on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation, and on our draft environmental assessment of the proposed designation. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of lynx habitat in the contiguous United States, and what occupied habitat has features that are essential to the conservation of the species and why and what unoccupied habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
        (3) Comments or information that may assist us with identifying or clarifying the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs);
        (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in areas proposed as critical habitat and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities in timber activities, residential and commercial development, recreation, and mining;

        (6) As discussed in this proposed rule, we are considering whether some of the lands we have identified as having features essential for the conservation of the lynx should not be included in the final designation of critical habitat if, prior to the final critical habitat designation, they are covered by final management plans that incorporate the conservation measures for the lynx (i.e., the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000), or comparable). In particular, seven National Forests and one Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district are in the process of revising or amending their Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) to provide measures for lynx conservation. It is anticipated that all of these plans will be complete prior to promulgation of the final critical habitat designation. As a result, all National Forest and BLM plans would have measures that provide for conservation of lynx, and consequently will not be in need of special management or protection.
        Currently, National Forests that have not revised or amended their LRMPs operate under a Conservation Agreement with the Service in which the parties agree to take measures to reduce or eliminate adverse effects or risks to lynx and its occupied habitat pending amendments to LRMPs. The LCAS is a basis for implementing this Agreement.
        In addition, we will be evaluating the adequacy of existing management plans to conserve lynx on lands that are designated wilderness areas or National Parks, as discussed in this proposed rule.
        We specifically solicit comment on whether such areas meet the definition of critical habitat based on:
        (A) Whether these areas contain features essential to the conservation of the lynx;
        (B) The adequacy of these management plans or the Conservation Agreement to provide special management and protection to lynx habitat;
        Any of these lands identified above may, if appropriate, be included in the final critical habitat designation, even if not proposed for designation in this notice.
        (7) Our proposal to not include tribal lands in the Maine and Minnesota units under the Secretarial Order Number 3206. The size of the individual reservation lands in the Maine and Minnesota units is relatively small. As a result, we believe conservation of the lynx can be achieved by limiting the designation to the other lands in the proposed units.
        (8) Whether lands in three areas are essential for the conservation of the species and the basis for why they might be essential. These areas are: (a) The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho); (b) the “Kettle Range” in Ferry County, Washington; and (c) the Southern Rocky Mountains,
        (9) How the proposed boundaries of critical habitat units could be refined to more closely conform to the boreal forest types occupied by lynx. Maps that accurately depict the specific vegetation types on all land ownerships were not readily available. Additionally, even if accurate, detailed vegetation maps were available, we were unsure how to delineate and describe critical habitat boundaries that solely encompassed lands containing the features essential to the conservation of the lynx.
        (10) 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 assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
        (11) Any foreseeable environmental impacts directly or indirectly resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat;
        (12) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat, and information on costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
        (13) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (14) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive from the designation;
        (15) Whether the critical habitat designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are specifically seeking comment along with additional information on the estimated costs, how these estimated costs are distributed within such location, and whether we should exclude all or a portion of a unit;
        (16) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation;
        (17) As noted in the draft economic analysis, we did not estimate the potential economic impacts for several specific land-use categories for two reasons, first because we are unsure of how certain conservation guidelines for the lynx may be applied and second, because we are uncertain as to how we should assume development will occur. We believe that we have three options:
        a. Apply potential economic impacts equally across all land-uses assuming all zoned development will occur. For example, the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy allows no more than 10 percent of habitat be lost to the lynx, in which case, we would assume that 90 percent of the lands zoned for development would not be available for anything other than lynx habitat and identify any economic losses identified with those activities;
        b. Assume that the 10 percent limitation on habitat loss will be calculated across the entire range of the lynx and that habitat losses will be concentrated in the highest economic value areas and that lower economic value areas will be preserved as habitat; or
        c. Focus potential economic impacts in areas where major economic development is projected in order to maximize the amount of habitat protected for lynx. This approach results in the highest economic cost as most areas zoned for development would be unable to be developed.
        Please provide comment on which approach is the most appropriate. Please reference page 3-12 of the draft economic analysis for further clarification of conservation guidelines.
        (18) The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was developed for conservation of lynx and lynx habitat on Federal lands particularly for the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Although developed for public lands, it represents the best available scientific information. Should the Service assume that the requirements of the LCAS management guidelines will be applied to private lands, and base the economic cost on that approach? If not, what standard should be used to measure the potential economic impacts of this designation on affected private landowners?
        (19) Private timber companies may also be subject to consultation on critical habitat or face impacts from consultation or mitigation based on their interaction with Federal agencies. For these reasons, we are requesting comments from any potentially affected small businesses involved in timber activities about the impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat. How will your small business be affected by this critical habitat designation? What are the estimated cost impacts of this proposed designation to your small business? and

        (20) Whether the benefits of exclusion in any particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

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

        Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AU52” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

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

        You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment by mail or by visiting our Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/lynx/criticalhabitat.htm. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Montana Ecological Services Field Office.
        Background

        The lynx generally inhabits cold, moist boreal forests in the contiguous United States. On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 68294) to designate approximately 18,031 square miles (mi2) (46,699 square kilometers (km2)) as critical habitat for the lynx. The proposed critical habitat includes four units in the States of Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. The original comment period on the proposed critical habitat rule closed on February 7, 2006. On February 16, 2006, we published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 8258) to reopen the public comment period and clarify the proposed designation; this second comment period closed on April 30, 2006.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Draft Economic Analysis
        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 have prepared a draft economic analysis of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68294), proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx.

        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the lynx including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
        The draft analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date the lynx was listed as threatened in 2000, and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
        Costs related to conservation activities for the proposed designation of critical habitat for lynx pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be approximately $175 to $889 million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 dollars. Discounted future costs are estimated to be from $125 million to $411 million over 20 years ($8.38 million to $27.6 million annually) using a 3 percent discount rate, or $99.9 million to $259 million over 20 years ($9.43 million to $24.4 million annually) using a 7 percent discount rate.
        We solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal to designate critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        The draft environmental assessment (EA) presents the purpose of and need for critical habitat designation, the Proposed Action and alternatives, and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the Department of Interior NEPA procedures. The scope of the EA includes issues and resources within the contiguous United States range of the lynx in portions of Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington as well as areas with lynx habitat in Colorado and Wyoming not included in the proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx.

        The EA will be used by the Service to decide whether or not critical habitat will be designated as proposed, if the Proposed Action requires refinement, or if further analyses are needed through preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). If the Proposed Action is selected as described, or with minimal changes, and no further environmental analyses are needed, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the appropriate conclusion of this process. A FONSI would then be prepared for the EA.
        Required Determinations—Amended
        In our November 9, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 68294), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order 13132 and Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13211, Executive Order 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx, costs related to conservation activities for lynx pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be approximately $175 to $889 million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 dollars. Discounted future costs are estimated to be from $125 million to $411 million over 20 years ($8.38 million to $27.6 million annually) using a 3 percent discount rate, or $99.9 million to $259 million over 20 years ($9.43 million to $24.4 million annually) using a 7 percent discount rate. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, it is not anticipated that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the proposed rule or accompanying economic analysis.
        Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat, provided that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for lynx would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., timber, recreation, public and conservation land management, transportation, and mining). 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. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; other activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. Private companies may also be subject to consultation or mitigation impacts.
        Several of the activities potentially affected by lynx conservation efforts within the study area (timber, recreation, grazing) involve small businesses. Given the rural nature of the proposed designation, most of the potentially affected businesses in the affected regions are small.

        Our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities and small governments resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and proposed designation of its critical habitat. We evaluated small business entities in the following categories: Timber activities; residential and commercial development; recreation; public lands management and conservation planning; transportation, utilities, and municipal activities; and mining operations. Based on our analysis, impacts associated with small entities are anticipated to occur to timber activities, recreation, public lands management, conservation planning, transportation, and mining. Because no information was available regarding how residential and commercial development may be affected by lynx conservation, the analysis does not quantify specific impacts to residential and commercial development but rather provides the full option value for development within the study area. Thus, residential and commercial development impacts to small entities are not addressed in the SBREFA screening analysis. We are seeking comments from potentially affected small entities involved in timber activities, residential and commercial development, recreation, and mining. The following is a summary of the information contained in the draft economic analysis:
        (a) Timber Activities
        According to the draft economic analysis, impacts on timberlands have historically resulted from implementation of lynx management plans and project modifications. The majority of forecast impacts on timber relate to potential restrictions on pre-commercial thinning, with nearly half of these impacts occurring on private timberland in Maine. The economic analysis applied two scenarios to bound the impacts resulting from potential changes to timber activities. Under Scenario 2, the upper bound, timber impacts range from $15.6 million (discounted at 7 percent) to $33.3 million (discounted at 3 percent) over 20 years. When compared to forestry-related earning across counties in the study area ($454 million in 2003), these potential losses are approximately 3 to 7 percent of total forestry-related earnings. Total forecast impacts to timber activities range from $117 million to $808 million over 20 years. Exhibits C-1 through C-4 of the economic analysis quantify the small timber companies that may be affected by the proposed rule. However, the draft economic analysis states that it is uncertain whether private timber companies will be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Government agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, are subject to critical habitat consultations.
        (b) Residential and Commercial Development
        Because specific information on how residential and commercial development projects would mitigate for impacts to lynx and its habitat is unknown, the draft economic analysis does not attempt to quantify the economic impacts of mitigating development activities. Instead, it presents the full value that may be derived from potential future development within the potential critical habitat. The total projected future development value of areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the lynx is approximately $2.26 billion. Approximately 69.1 percent ($1.56 billion) of this is the value of future development in Minnesota (Unit 2); 25.7 percent ($579 million) of this is the value of future development in Maine (Unit 1), of which $1.57 million is proposed for exclusion; and 5.2 percent ($117 million) of this is the value of future development in Montana. Lands proposed for critical habitat in Washington are characterized by public lands managed for timber and recreation. As such, residential and commercial development is not considered to be a future land use, and the value of these lands for future development is considered to be negligible. Recognizing that approximately 80 percent of the projected value of potential future residential and commercial development within the area proposed as critical habitat consist of lands within Minnesota and recognizing the potential effects on landowners and development companies, we will consider this information pursuant to section 4(b)(2) during the development of the final designation.
        No North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code exists for landowners, and the Small Business Administration does not provide a definition of a small landowner. However, recognizing that it is possible that some of the landowners may be small businesses, this analysis provides information concerning the number of landowners potentially affected: An upward estimate of 38 in Maine, 53 in Minnesota, and 110 in Montana. It is possible that a portion of these affected landowners could be small businesses in the residential or commercial land development industry or could be associated businesses, such as builders and developers. Actual conservation requirements undertaken by an individual landowner will depend on how much of a parcel lies within or affects proposed critical habitat. Individual single-family home development has not historically been subject to consultation or habitat conservation requirements for lynx, although consultation could be required if Federal permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, or Federal Emergency Management Agency are required.
        For these reasons, we are requesting comments from any potentially affected small businesses involved in residential and commercial development activities, about the impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat. How will small businesses, such as landowners, builders or developers be affected by this critical habitat designation? The economic analysis presents the full potential development value of impacted lands within the potential critical habitat as a baseline, but does not provide a cost estimate. How could this estimate be refined to demonstrate how small businesses in the residential and commercial development field will be affected by this critical habitat designation? What would you suggest as another measure of these costs?
        (c) Recreation
        Recreational activities that have the potential to affect the lynx and its habitat include over-the-snow trails for snowmobiling and cross-country skiing, accidental trapping or shooting, and recreation area expansions such as ski resorts, campgrounds, or snowmobile areas. Total forecast costs to all recreation activities in areas proposed for designation are $1.05 to $3.46 million, or an annualized estimate of $57,600 to $178,000 (applying a 7 percent discount rate) or $54,500 to $175,000 (applying a 3 percent discount rate). Impacts to recreation activity forecast in the draft analysis include welfare impacts to individual snowmobilers; however, the level of participation is not expected to change. As no decrease in the level of snowmobiling activity is forecast, impacts to small businesses that support the recreation sector are not anticipated.

        We are requesting comments from any potentially affected small businesses involved in recreation activities, about the impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat. What are the estimated cost impacts of this proposed designation to your small business?
        (d) Public lands management and conservation planning
        The draft economic analysis estimates that total post-designation costs of lynx conservation efforts associated with public and conservation lands management in areas proposed for designation to be approximately $12.8 million over the next 20 years, or an annualized cost of $940,000 (present value applying a 7 percent discount rate) or $767,000 (applying a 3 percent discount rate). The majority of public lands are managed by Federal and State entities that do not qualify as small businesses. As such, designation of critical habitat for lynx is not anticipated to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses involved in public lands management or conservation planning.
        (e) Transportation, Utilities, and Municipal Activities
        The draft economic analysis estimates that total post-designation costs resulting from lynx conservation efforts associated with transportation, utilities, and municipal activities for areas proposed for designation will range from $34.9 million to $55.1 million over the next 20 years, or an annualized value of $1.9 to 2.9 million (present value applying a 7 percent discount rate) or $1.8 to $2.8 million (present value applying a 3 percent discount rate). Of the total post-designation costs, approximately 71 percent are attributed to transportation activities, and 29 percent are attributed to utility and municipal activities. Impacts to transportation and municipal projects are expected to be borne by the Federal and State agencies undertaking lynx-related modifications to these types of projects, including the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and State transportation departments. Since Federal and State entities do not qualify as small businesses, the designation of critical habitat for the lynx is not anticipated to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses associated with transportation, utilities, and municipal activities.
        Impacts to dam projects, including costs of remote monitoring for lynx that could be required for relicensing of dams, could be borne by the companies that own the dams. In particular, 14 dams in Minnesota and two in Maine are expected to consider lynx conservation at the time of relicensing. The economic analysis estimated costs of $13,000 to $18,000 to each of these 16 dam projects in 2025. Based on these small costs, we do not anticipate that this would be a significant impact to dam operators.
        (f) Mining Operations
        The draft economic analysis estimates total post-designation costs resulting from lynx conservation efforts associated with mining projects of approximately $430,000, or an annualized rate of $38,000 (present value applying a 7 percent discount rate) or $28,100 (present value applying a 3 percent discount rate). Unit 2 (Minnesota) is the only area of potential critical habitat for which future surface mining expansion and development projects have been identified; specifically, three new or expanded mining projects are forecast to occur on leased lands of Superior National Forest. The greatest impact estimated is $375,000 or an annualized impact of $33,100 for the East Reserve Mine, which has a total value of $819 million, which equates to less than a 1 percent annual impact to the mine relative to its total value. There is an uncertainty for realized impacts on the mining industry from lynx conservation activities.
        We are requesting comments from any potentially affected small businesses involved in the mining industry, about the impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat. What are the estimated cost impacts of this proposed designation to your small business?
        We evaluated small business entities relative to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx to determine potential effects to these business entities and the scale of any potential impact. Based on our analysis, there are potential projected impacts associated with small entities in the areas of timber activities, recreation, public lands management, conservation planning, transportation, and mining. There is also a possibility of potential projected impacts to development activities. Due to the lack of information, the economic analysis for this critical habitat does not attempt to assign development impacts to specific small entities, rather leaving open the question of whether any small entities will be affected. We have outlined above potential projected future impacts to these entities resulting from conservation-related activities for the lynx, and asked potential affected small entities for input as to what the likely impacts will be for their industry sectors. We do, however, recognize that there may be disproportionate impact to certain sectors and geographic areas within lands proposed for designation. As such, we will more fully evaluate these potential impacts during the development of the final designation, and may, if appropriate, consider such lands for exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx is considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 due to it potentially raising novel legal and policy issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis (refer to Appendix C of the draft economic analysis). Thus, based on the information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with lynx conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

          (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with the following two exceptions: It excludes “a condition of federal assistance” and “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
          The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
          (b) The draft economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical habitat designation for lynx on timber activities, development, recreation, public lands management and conservation planning, transportation, utilities, and municipal activities, and mining operations. The analysis estimates that annual costs of the rule could range from $175 million to $889 million in constant dollars over 20 years. Impacts are largely anticipated to affect timber management, with some effects on residential and commercial development, recreation, and transportation. Impacts on small governments are either not anticipated, or they are anticipated to be passed through to consumers. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for lynx will significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

        Executive Order 12630—Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for the lynx in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for the lynx does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Montana Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: August 29, 2006.
          David M. Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 06-7579 Filed 9-6-06; 2:32 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471; FRL-9924-36-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AS26
        Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Receipt of a complete petition; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the February 6, 2015, receipt of a complete petition document titled “Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants” is being extended by 60 days.

          DATES:

          The public comment period for the receipt of a complete petition document published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6676), is being extended by 60 days to May 7, 2015, in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on the receipt of a complete petition document may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the Federal Register document (80 FR 6676) for the addresses and detailed instructions.

            Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The official public docket for this rulemaking is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. John Schaefer, Policy and Strategies Group (D205-02), Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-0296; Fax number (919) 541-5600; Email address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Comment Period
        After considering a request received to extend the public comment period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period for an additional 60 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on May 7, 2015, rather than March 9, 2015. This extension will help ensure that the public has sufficient time to review the proposed rule, the supporting technical documents and data available in the docket.

          Dated: March 2, 2015.
          Stephen D. Page,
          Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2015-05550 Filed 3-9-15; 11:15 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        42 CFR Part 88
        [NIOSH Docket 094]
        World Trade Center Health Program; Petition 018—Hypertension; Finding of Insufficient Evidence

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for addition of a health condition.

          SUMMARY:
          On January 5, 2018, the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program received a petition (Petition 018) to add hypertension (high blood pressure) to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). Upon reviewing the scientific and medical literature, including information provided by the petitioner, the Administrator has determined that the available evidence does not have the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add hypertension to the List. The Administrator also finds that insufficient evidence exists to request a recommendation of the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), to publish a proposed rule, or to publish a determination not to publish a proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is denying this petition for the addition of a health condition as of April 24, 2018.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          A. WTC Health Program Statutory Authority
          B. Procedures for Evaluating a Petition
          C. Petition 018
          D. Review of Scientific and Medical Information and Administrator Determination
          E. Administrator's Final Decision on Whether To Propose the Addition of Hypertension to the List
          F. Approval To Submit Document to the Office of the Federal Register

        A. WTC Health Program Statutory Authority

        Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347, as amended by Pub. L. 114-113), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service (PHS) Act,1
           establishing the WTC Health Program within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The WTC Health Program provides medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible firefighters and related personnel, law enforcement officers, and rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), and to eligible persons who were present in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001, or who worked, resided, or attended school, childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area (survivors).

            1 Title XXXIII of the PHS Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm-61. Those portions of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 found in Titles II and III of Public Law 111-347 do not pertain to the WTC Health Program and are codified elsewhere.

        All references to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program (Administrator) in this notice mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or his designee.

        Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act, interested parties may petition the Administrator to add a health condition to the List in 42 CFR 88.15. Within 90 days after receipt of a valid petition to add a condition to the List, the Administrator must take one of the following four actions described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act and § 88.16(a)(2) of the Program regulations: (1) Request a recommendation of the STAC; (2) publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to add such health condition; (3) publish in the Federal Register the Administrator's determination not to publish such a proposed rule and the basis for such determination; or (4) publish in the Federal Register a determination that insufficient evidence exists to take action under (1) through (3) above.
        B. Procedures for Evaluating a Petition
        In addition to the regulatory provisions, the WTC Health Program has developed policies to guide the review of submissions and petitions,2
           as well as the analysis of evidence supporting the potential addition of a non-cancer health condition to the List.3

            2 See WTC Health Program [2014], Policy and Procedures for Handling Submissions and Petitions to Add a Health Condition to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, May 14, 2014, http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/pdfs/WTCHPPPPetitionHandlingProcedures14May2014.pdf.

            3 See WTC Health Program [2017], Policy and Procedures for Adding Non-Cancer Conditions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, February 14, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/wtc/pdfs/WTCHP_PP_Adding_NonCancers_14_February_2017.pdf.

        A valid petition must include sufficient medical basis for the association between the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the health condition to be added; in accordance with WTC Health Program policy, reference to a peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic study about the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations or to clinical case reports of health conditions in WTC responders or survivors may demonstrate the required medical basis.4
           Studies linking 9/11 agents to the petitioned health condition may also provide sufficient medical basis for a valid petition.

            4 See supra note 2.

        After the Program has determined that a petition is valid, the Administrator must direct the Program to conduct a review of the scientific literature to determine if the available scientific information has the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add the health condition to the List.5
           The literature review includes a search for peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies (including direct observational studies in the case of health conditions such as injuries) about the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations. The Program evaluates the scientific quality limitations of each peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic study of the health condition identified in the literature search; the Program then compiles the scientific results of each study to assess whether a causal relationship between 9/11 exposures and the health condition is supported, and evaluates whether the results of the studies are representative of the 9/11-exposed population of responders and survivors. A health condition may be added to the List if peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies provide support that the health condition is substantially likely 6
           to be causally associated with 9/11 exposures. If the evaluation of evidence provided in peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of the health condition in 9/11 populations demonstrates a high, but not substantial, likelihood of a causal association between the 9/11 exposures and the health condition, then the Administrator may consider additional highly relevant scientific evidence regarding exposures to 9/11 agents 7
           from sources using non-9/11-exposed populations. If that additional assessment establishes that the health condition is substantially likely to be causally associated with 9/11 exposures among 9/11-exposed populations, the health condition may be added to the List.

            5 See supra note 3.

            6 The “substantially likely” standard is met when the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrates a strong relationship between the 9/11 exposures and the health condition.

            7 9/11 agents are chemical, physical, biological, or other agents or hazards reported in a published, peer-reviewed exposure assessment study of responders or survivors who were present in the New York City disaster area, at the Pentagon site, or at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania site, as those locations are defined in 42 CFR 88.1.

        C. Petition 018
        On January 5, 2018, the Administrator received a petition (Petition 018) from a WTC responder who worked at Ground Zero, requesting the addition of “hypertension—high blood pressure” to the List.8
           The petition included one scientific article reviewing the findings of peer-reviewed, published epidemiologic studies concerning the association of hypertension and cardiovascular disease with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), by McFarlane [2010].9

           The McFarlane article on its own did not provide a medical basis, but it did provide a reference to a peer-reviewed, published study by Gerin et al. [2005] 10
           of hypertension in populations that were potentially affected by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, and Mississippi, suggesting an association between 9/11 exposures and the health condition. The inclusion of a reference to this study in the submission provides sufficient medical basis for the submission to be considered a valid petition.

            8 See Petition 018, WTC Health Program: Petitions Received, http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/received.html.

            9 McFarlane AC [2010], The Long-Term Costs of Traumatic Stress: Intertwined Physical and Psychological Consequences, World Psychiatry 9:3-10.

            10 Gerin W, Chaplin W, Schwartz JE, et al. [2005], Sustained Blood Pressure Increase After an Acute Stressor: the Effects of the 11 September 2001 Attack on the New York City World Trade Center, Journal of Hypertension 23(2):279-284.

        D. Review of Scientific and Medical Information and Administrator Determination
        In response to Petition 018, and pursuant to the Program policy on the addition of non-cancer health conditions to the List,11
           the Program conducted reviews of the scientific literature on hypertension.12
           Through the literature search, the Program identified 21 references to review for relevance; 13

           of those identified references, three were found to be relevant peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of hypertension in 9/11-exposed populations: Simeon et al. [2008],14
           Trasande et al. [2013],15
           and Kim et al. [2018].16
           At this stage of the evaluation process, the Gerin et al. [2005] study was more carefully reviewed. The study population in Gerin et al. [2005] included participants residing in New York City and Washington DC who might have been exposed to reports of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in “newspapers, radio and television broadcasts, magazine articles, and web-based discussions, literally every day from the time they occurred. . . .” 17

           None of the participants were reported to have been first responders, volunteers, or survivors of the terrorist attacks, or to have been directly exposed to 9/11 agents. Accordingly, the Administrator determined that Gerin et al. [2005] is not an epidemiologic study of hypertension in the 9/11-exposed populations and does not meet the threshold for relevance established in the Program policy; therefore, the study is not further reviewed below.

            11 Supra note 3.

            12 Databases searched include: NIOSHTIC-2, ProQuest Health & Safety, PubMed, Scopus, Toxicology Abstracts/TOXLINE, and Medline.

            13 The 21 studies included a study by Jordan et al. [2011], which the Program evaluated and determined not to be relevant to an evaluation of hypertension among the 9/11 population. The study's authors evaluated cardiovascular disease hospitalizations among WTC Health Registry members; however, hypertension was grouped with other cardiovascular conditions and, therefore, the effect of 9/11 exposures on hypertension hospitalizations could not be ascertained. Jordan HT, Brackbill RM, Cone JE, et al. [2011], Mortality among survivors of the Sept 11, 2001, World Trade Center disaster: results from the World Trade Center Health Registry cohort, Lancet 378(9794):879-887.

            14 Simeon D, Yehuda R, Knutelska M, et al. [2008], Dissociation versus posttraumatic stress: cortisol and physiological correlates in adults highly exposed to the World Trade Center attack on 9/11, Psychiatry Research 161(3):325-329.

            15 Trasande L, Fiorino EK, Attina T, et al. [2013], Associations of World Trade Center exposures with pulmonary and cardiometabolic outcomes among children seeking care for health concerns, The Science of the Total Environment 444:320-326.

            16 Kim H, Kriebel D, Liu B, et al. [2018], Standardized morbidity ratios of four chronic health conditions among World Trade Center responders: Comparison to the National Health Interview Survey, American Journal of Industrial Medicine (accepted for publication).

            17 Supra note 10, at 283.

          Simeon et al. [2008]. The cross-sectional study 18
           by Simeon et al. [2008] was designed to “investigate perturbations in the major stress response systems . . . after the 9/11 attack, with a specific focus of dissecting unique correlates of posttraumatic stress versus dissociative symptomatology.” The authors' primary hypothesis was that dissociation and posttraumatic stress show different associations to cortisol and psychophysiological measures (dexamethasone suppression, psychosocial stress reactivity, and physiological stress reactivity). Blood pressure and heart rate were also measured to allow comparisons between physiologic measures of dissociation and posttraumatic stress in exposed and unexposed study participants. Participants included 21 New York City residents considered “highly exposed to 9/11,” as well as 10 New York City residents who did not have significant 9/11 exposure or a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), who served as the control group. Exposed participants reported being inside a tower, being in very close proximity to Ground Zero, losing a close loved-one, or participating in rescue and recovery efforts. Mean resting systolic blood pressure, mean resting diastolic blood pressure, mean peak Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) systolic blood pressure, and mean peak TSST diastolic blood pressure 19
           did not differ significantly between the exposed and unexposed groups, even among seven of the 21 exposed participants who met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD.

            18 An observational study that analyzes data from a population or sub-set of a population at a specific point in time.

            19 Blood pressure was measured at rest (averaged over four hourly time points) and at its peak during TSST. The study did not provide any information about equipment used or guidelines followed to measure blood pressure.

        The Program found several limitations with the Simeon et al. [2008] study. First, the study inadequately adjusted for confounding; because the authors did not provide enough information about the control group, the Program was unable to determine whether adjustments had been made for all potential confounders. Second, the study inadequately addressed recruitment bias; the exposed study participants were recruited by newspaper advertisement, which primarily captures those individuals who subscribe to or purchase the newspaper and thus may not be representative of the entire 9/11-exposed population. Third, the study incompletely considered all aspects of exposure; the authors described the experimental and control groups only as “highly exposed” and no “significant exposure,” respectively, rather than seeking to quantitatively or qualitatively characterize the different types of exposure experienced by participants, as well as the intensity and duration of their exposures, and the resulting impacts on health outcomes. Finally, the study insufficiently addressed the inadequacies of the referent population; the study employs a small sample size and thus lacks adequate power to evaluate the association between 9/11 exposure and hypertension.

          Trasande et al. [2013]. The second study, by Trasande et al. [2013], is also a cross-sectional study. It was designed to examine the impact of clinically-reported exposures on the health of children who were exposed to the terrorist attack in New York City. Study participants included 148 patients who were 18 years of age or younger on September 11, 2001, enrolled in the WTC Environmental Health Center (the health program for 9/11 survivors that predated the WTC Health Program). The authors compared blood pressure data from the study population 20
           with that of children 6 to 19 years of age, reported in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001-2006. The authors developed exposure categories for dust cloud exposure and presence/absence at their home residence one day during September 11-18, 2001, but none were used in the evaluation of an association with prehypertension or hypertension. The study found that 45.5 percent of children in the study population were prehypertensive and 10.6 percent were hypertensive, compared with the NHANES data, in which 6.9 percent were prehypertensive and 2.4 percent were hypertensive; 21
           prehypertension among the study group was positively associated with older age (+9.5% odds/year older, p = 0.024).

            20 Blood pressure was measured using a Philips SureSigns VS3 oscillometric sphygmomanometer with appropriate cuff size for arm length, following American Heart Association guidelines in Urbina E, Alpert B, Flynn J, Hayman L, Harshfield GA, Jacobson M, et al. [2008], Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in children and adolescents: recommendations for standard assessment: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Atherosclerosis, Hypertension, and Obesity in Youth Committee of the council on cardiovascular disease in the young and the council for high blood pressure research, Hypertension 52:433-51. The guidelines referenced by the study authors are for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, not single clinic measurements as were conducted during the study.

            21 The study authors categorized blood pressure (BP) outcomes as follows: present/absent prehypertension (BP ≥90th percentile for age/height Z-score/gender or systolic BP ≥120 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg) and present/absent hypertension (BP ≥95th percentile for age/height Z-score/gender or systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg).

        Although the results of Trasande et al. [2013] suggest possible cardiovascular effects, the Program found several major limitations with the study. First, the study inadequately adjusted for possible confounders; although the authors identify that an important confounder is living in an urban setting where the types and concentrations of particulates are different than in other settings, no adjustments were made to account for the setting, limiting the value of the comparing the urban study population's blood pressure data with NHANES data, which includes data from suburban and rural populations likely exposed to different types and concentrations of particulates. Second, the study inadequately addressed recruitment bias; the authors selected participants from among those who presented to the WTC Environmental Health Center, and were ≤18 years old on September 11, 2001 and thus may have been sicker than the general population of survivors. Third, the study incompletely considered all aspects of exposure; 9/11 exposure among participants with hypertension was not considered or evaluated. Finally, the study insufficiently addressed the inadequacies of the referent population; the study does not describe whether the NHANES sample has a comparable ethnic composition and residential setting to that of the study group. Although the study did find a relatively high frequency of cardiometabolic risks, including elevated blood pressure, the authors did not evaluate the association between 9/11 exposure and hypertension.

          Kim et al. [2018]. The third study, a prospective cohort study 22
           by Kim et al. [2018], was designed to compare the lifetime prevalence of hypertension, asthma, diabetes, and cancer among WTC responders currently enrolled in the WTC Health Program, with a referent group from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Hypertension 23
           among WTC responders was self-reported, as was exposure to WTC dust and other stressors. After comparing annual standardized morbidity ratios for hypertension prevalence, the authors found that hypertension prevalence was statistically significantly increased among male WTC responders between 2007 and 2009, peaking at 1.17 (95% CI 1.13-1.22) in 2008, but decreased among male WTC responders in 2010, which was the last year studied. Hypertension prevalence was never elevated among women. The authors ultimately concluded that the slightly higher prevalence of hypertension in men in the study group may be associated with WTC-related PTSD and that further analysis and follow-up of WTC responders is warranted.

            22 A study that follows a cohort of similar individuals over time to determine how risk factors affect health outcomes.

            23 Responders who participated in the Kim et al. [2018], study were asked: “Has a doctor ever told you that you had high blood pressure?” The Program assumes the authors define hypertension as having responded “yes” to this questions, although this level of detail was not provided by the authors. Participants of the NHIS study were asked: “Have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have hypertension, also called high blood pressure?” Kim et al. [2018] provides no further information provided regarding the study's definition of “high blood pressure” or “hypertension.”

        The Program identified several limitations with the Kim et al. [2018] study. First, the study inadequately adjusted for confounders; the standardized morbidity ratios were age-adjusted, but not adjusted for other confounders. Second, the study did not adequately adjust for recruitment bias; the authors acknowledge that selection bias is likely because sicker WTC responders may have been more likely to enroll in the WTC Health Program and attend follow-up examinations more frequently. Third, the study incompletely considered all aspects of exposure; the authors described the WTC responder and referent groups only as “exposed” and “unexposed,” respectively. Fourth, the study incompletely addressed the inadequacies of the referent population; the NHIS data, while representative of the U.S. population, is likely not comparable to the WTC responder cohort. Finally, outcome data in the study was incomplete; the authors used self-reported hypertension rather than conducting blood pressure measurements in study participants, and used different questions to define hypertension in the WTC responder group compared with the referent group.

        Together, all three studies were assessed to determine whether a causal relationship between 9/11 exposures and hypertension is supported. The Program uses the following Bradford Hill criteria to evaluate studies of 9/11-exposed populations: strength of association, precision of the risk estimate, consistency of findings, biological gradient, and plausibility and coherence. Only one of the three studies demonstrated a statistically significant increase in hypertension among WTC responders (Kim et al. [2018]); one study found no statistically significant differences in blood pressure between exposed and unexposed participants (Simeon et al. [2008]); and one study used an inadequate comparison group and this faulty study design feature precluded an evaluation of the association between 9/11 exposures and the risk of hypertension (Trasande et al. [2013]). Only one of the three studies demonstrated a precise risk estimate (Kim et al. [2018]); risk estimates were not calculated in the other two studies. The studies did not share a single definition of hypertension, and, ultimately, their findings were not consistent, as only Kim et al. [2018] showed a statistically significant increase in hypertension among WTC responders. The biological gradient and dose response were not evaluated in any of the studies. Although none of the studies evaluated a causal association between hypertension and WTC dust, the Program finds it plausible and coherent that 9/11 exposures may increase blood pressure, possibly through one or more of the following mechanisms: (1) Systemic oxidative stress/inflammation, (2) elevated endothelin levels or activity, or (3) altered autonomic nervous system balance,24

           and this is consistent with the results presented by Trasande et al. [2013] and Kim et al. [2018].

            24 See Brook RD, Urch B, Dvonch JT, et al. [2009], Insights into the mechanisms and mediators of the effects of air pollution exposure on blood pressure and vascular function in healthy humans, Hypertension 54(3):659-667.

        Finally, the three studies were reviewed to determine whether the studies represent both the WTC responder and survivor populations or a subgroup of those populations, or whether the results can be extrapolated to the entire 9/11-exposed population. The Program found that only one study demonstrated that the results could be extrapolated to the population of WTC responders (Kim et al. [2018]); another study was conducted among a potentially non-representative and small sample of WTC survivors (Simeon et al. [2008]), and the final study did not describe a sampling procedure to allow an assessment of representativeness (Trasande et al. [2013]).

        The studies described and evaluated above had limitations and lacked consistency among their results. Neither the one study that showed a statistically significant increase in hypertension among WTC responders, Kim et al. [2018], nor all three studies, taken together, were able to demonstrate that hypertension is substantially likely to be causally associated with 9/11 exposures among 9/11-exposed populations.
        E. Administrator's Final Decision on Whether To Propose the Addition of Hypertension to the List

        The Administrator has determined that insufficient evidence is available to take further action at this time, including proposing the addition of hypertension to the List (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a determination not to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(iii)). The Administrator has also determined that requesting a recommendation from the STAC (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(i) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(i)) is unwarranted.
        For the reasons discussed above, the Petition 018 request to add hypertension to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is denied.
        The WTC Health Program may consider hypertension to be a condition medically associated with a certified WTC-related health condition in individual cases. Program members who think their hypertension is a progression or side effect of treatment of a certified WTC-related health condition should ask their WTC Health Program medical provider whether their hypertension might be considered a medically associated health condition.
        F. Approval To Submit Document to the Office of the Federal Register
        The Secretary, HHS, or his designee, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), authorized the undersigned, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program, to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the WTC Health Program. Robert Redfield M.D., Director, CDC, and Administrator, ATSDR, approved this document for publication on April 18, 2018.

          John J. Howard,
          Administrator,  World Trade Center Health Program and Director,  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  Department of Health and Human Services.

      [FR Doc. 2018-08456 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Part 37
        [Docket No. OST-2000-7703]
        RIN 2105-AC86
        Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:

          The Department of Transportation is proposing to amend its rules implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by adopting as its standards revised accessibility guidelines proposed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). The Access Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise and update the accessibility guidelines for the ADA and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) in the November 16, 1999 issue of the Federal Register. This proposed rule would adopt the Access Board's revised and updated ADA guidelines and make a conforming change to the Department's rule implementing the ADA.

          DATES:
          Comments are requested by September 7, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Docket No. OST-2000-7703, Room PL-401, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. The Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, is open for public inspection and copying of comments from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Any person wishing acknowledgement of comment receipt should include a self-addressed stamped postcard, or print the acknowledgement page after submitting comments electronically. The public may also review docketed comments electronically.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Blane A. Workie, Attorney, Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC, 20590. (202) 366-4723 (voice); (202) 755-7687 (TDD); blane.workie@ost.dot.gov (email). Copies will be made available in alternative formats on request.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        All timely comments received by the Access Board on its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published November 16, 1999 (64 FR 62248), will be deemed by the Department to have been submitted in response to this proposed rule and will be considered fully as the Department works towards a final rule based on this proposal. Therefore, it is not necessary for any comments submitted to the Board on its proposed rule to be resubmitted to the Department.
        This proposed rule would adopt the amended Access Board's Appendix A which contains scoping provisions for the ADA and Appendix C which contains common technical provisions for the ADA as a new Appendix A to Part 37, replacing the Department's current Appendix A. The Access Board issued an NPRM on November 16, 1999 and requested public comments on its revised appendices. Then, on March 9, 2000, the Access Board extended the comment period until May 15, 2000 to allow the public additional time to prepare comments on the proposed rule. See 65 FR 12493. As a member of the Access Board, the Department will be actively involved in the review and analysis of comments the Access Board receives and in making any revisions on the appendices in response to those comments. Therefore, the Department has proposed to adopt the Access Board's amended appendices A and C as its accessibility standards. We request comments on whether the Department's accessibility standards should differ from the Access Board's guidelines proposed on November 16, 1999.
        Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866

        This NPRM which proposes to adopt the Access Board's accessibility guidelines is significant under Executive Order 12866 and significant under DOT policies and procedures. The Access Board's NPRM which underlies this rule and which was published in the November 16, 1999 Federal Register is also significant under Executive Order 12866 . Both the Access Board's NPRM and this NPRM have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Access Board prepared a Regulatory Assessment, which examines the cost impact of sections of the proposed rule that establish new requirements. In order to avoid duplicative or unnecessary analyses, DOT is utilizing the regulatory assessment prepared by the Access Board. Comments submitted to the Access Board on its Regulatory Assessment will be considered by the Department as comments on this NPRM.
        Executive Order 13132: Federalism

        This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This NPRM will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        This NPRM does not need to be assessed to determine its effects on State, local, and tribal governments since it is issued under the authority of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 does not apply to proposed or final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or enforce any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or disability.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Access Board has determined that its guidelines will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, has not prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This determination also applies to the Department's proposed adoption of the revised ADAAG.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37
          Buildings and facilities, Buses, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Mass transportation, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 49 CFR part 37 as set forth below:

          PART 37—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; 49 U.S.C. 322.

          2. Appendix A to Part 37, “Standards for Accessible Transportation Facilities,” is revised to read as follows:

            Appendix A to Part 37—Standards for Accessible Transportation Facilities
            [Note: The text of the proposed revision is identical to the text of appendices A and C of the Access Board's November 16, 1999 notice of proposed rulemaking. See 64 FR 62248, 62284 and 62371.]

              Issued this 25th day of July, 2000, in Washington, DC.
              Rodney E. Slater,
              Secretary of Transportation.

      [FR Doc. 00-19482 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


        POSTAL SERVICE
        39 CFR Part 111
        New Standards to Enhance Business Reply Mail (BRM) Visibility

          AGENCY:
          Postal Service.TM

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Postal Service proposes to revise Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) to require the use of an Intelligent Mail® package barcode (IMpb) on Business Reply Mail® (BRM) labels intended for use on cartons, parcel-shaped items, or Priority Mail® items of any shape.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 17, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, by appointment only, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling 202-268-2906 in advance. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to: ProductClassification@usps.gov, with a subject line of “BRM Visibility.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Juliaann Hess at 202-268-7663, John F. Rosato at 202-268-8597, or Suzanne Newman at 202-695-0550.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Postal Service continues to enhance its operational capability to scan IMpb, encoded with routing and tracking information, via automated mail processing equipment and Intelligent Mail scanning devices and to provide tracking information to the mailers. Full implementation of the Postal Service's package strategy relies on the availability of piece-level information provided through the widespread use of IMpb. Mailing standards recently added to the DMM now require the use of IMpb on all commercial parcels (except parcels paid for using BRM service). The Postal Service now advances its package strategy by requiring a unique IMpb on cartons, parcel-shaped items, or Priority Mail pieces of any shape, sent using BRM service.

          Background: On December 18, 2013, the Postal Service published a final rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 76548) announcing that an IMpb, unique to each mailpiece, would be required on all commercial parcels, effective January 26, 2014. At that time the Postal Service also announced that it would be eliminating the option for any mailpiece meeting the physical characteristics of a parcel (under DMM 201) to pay for postage using Business Reply Mail® (BRM).

        In response to mailer feedback, on June 5, 2014, the Postal Service published a Federal Register notice (79 FR 32490) indefinitely deferring the elimination of the option to use BRM to pay postage for parcel-shaped items. At that time the Postal Service also indicated that it expected to issue proposed rules requiring the use of an IMpb on certain BRM cartons and labels.
        In accordance with its previously expressed intent, the Postal Service now issues proposed rules for requiring the use of an IMpb on BRM cartons, parcels, and Priority Mail items of any shape.

          General IMpb Requirements: Technical and general specifications for IMpb use are provided in Publication 199, Intelligent Mail Package Barcode (IMpb) Implementation Guide for: Confirmation Services and Electronic Verification System (eVS) Mailers, and DMM 708.5.1.

          BRM: In order to ensure that parcel-shaped items sent using BRM service comply with the same standards as all other commercial parcels, the Postal Service would require a unique IMpb on:
        a. All BRM cartons.
        b. All BRM labels distributed with the intent of being placed on an item meeting the physical characteristics of a parcel in DMM 201.
        c. All BRM labels distributed with the intent of being placed on Priority Mail items of any shape.

        For the purposes of this requirement, a BRM carton is defined as a parcel-shaped mailpiece with a BRM label either printed directly on the mailpiece or affixed by the end user prior to mailing. BRM permit holders would not be required to submit shipping manifests to support these mailpieces. BRM labels would be required to use a unique Mailer ID (MID) for parcel-shaped BRM pieces and a concatenated IMpb construct that includes the ZIP+4® routing code. The barcodes must be unique for 180 days. BRM cartons and parcels shall use IMpb service type codes for Merchandise Return Service for Priority Mail or First-Class Mail®, based on the product shipped. The Postal Service will provide an exception process—for mailers of small BRM cartons and parcels lacking sufficient label space to apply an IMpb barcode meeting the 3/4-inch height requirement—to submit barcodes of at least 1/2-inch in height for USPS® testing and approval. This exception process will be administered by the National Customer Service Center (NCSC), as part of the normal barcode approval process. At this time, no other changes would be made to the BRM requirements in DMM 505.1 applicable to all other mail shapes.

          Noncompliant Mailpieces: The Postal Service would assess a per-piece price adjustment on all noncompliant pieces. The Postal Service would begin enforcement of the per piece price adjustment for Priority Mail pieces once final rules are issued. The proposed effective date for the per-piece adjustment on First-Class Mail pieces would be predicated on the Postal Service filing a notice with, and receiving approval from, the Postal Regulatory Commission.

          List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
          Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

        Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 111—[AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

        2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows:
        Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)

        505 Return Services
        1.0 Business Reply Mail (BRM)

        1.4 General Information
        1.4.1 Description

          [Insert a new fourth sentence in 1.4.1 to read as follows:]

        * * * All BRM labels intended for use on cartons, mailpieces meeting the physical characteristics of a parcel in DMM 201, or a Priority Mail item of any shape, must meet the standards under 1.7.10. * * *

        1.7 Mailpiece Characteristics

          [Insert new 1.7.10 to read as follows:]

        1.7.10 Labels for Parcels

        BRM labels intended for use on cartons, mailpieces meeting the physical standards of a parcel under DMM 201, or a Priority Mail item of any shape, must also bear an IMpb prepared under 708.5.0 and meet the technical standards in the Parcel Labeling Guide available on RIBBS.

        1.8 Format Elements
        1.8.1 General

          [Revise the text of the first and second sentences of 1.8.1 to read as follows:]

        Except for BRM labels for parcels as provided under 1.7.10, all pieces of BRM are subject to these format elements. For all other BRM pieces, an Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) is not required, except for QBRM prices; if an IMb is used, it must be printed and placed as provided under 1.9 and as shown in Exhibit 1.8.1. * * *

        We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.

          Stanley F. Mires,
          Attorney, Federal Requirements.

      [FR Doc. 2014-19433 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7710-12-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [ID-00-001, ID-01-001; FRL-6957-2]
        Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Transportation Conformity: Idaho

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve new sections to the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) that contain the transportation conformity rule. These new sections to Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA) include IDAPA sections 58.01.01.563 through IDAPA 58.01.01.574, and IDAPA 58.01.01.582. They were submitted to EPA as part of a series of revisions to the SIP on December 6, 2000 and February 9, 2001. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

          DATE:
          Written comments must be received in writing by May 14, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send written comments to: Wayne Elson, Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the state submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 1420 North Hilton, Boise Idaho 83706-1255.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Wayne Elson, Office of Air Quality, (OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1463.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: March 9, 2001.
          Ron Kreizenbeck,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 01-8930 Filed 4-11-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-U


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74
        [GN Docket No. 12-268; Report 3011]
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the Federal Register of October 27, 2014 (79 FR 63883), regarding Petitions for Reconsideration filed of Action in a rulemaking proceeding. The document contained the incorrect deadline for filing replies to an opposition to the Petition. This document revises the deadline for replies to an opposition to the Petition.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 12, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before November 24, 2014.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          A.J. Glusman, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1425, email AJ.Glusman@fcc.gov.

          Correction
          In the Federal Register of October 27, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-25456, on page 63883, in the second column, correct the DATES section to read:

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 12, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before November 24, 2014.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2014-26116 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P