Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides, 31137-31141 [E6-8459]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
call is illegitimate. A registration
requirement, if adopted, might require
VRS and IP Relay providers to register
each user so that the provider would
have identifying information of the
person making the call, and might
require the provider or user to update
this information as necessary. The rules,
if adopted, might also require the
providers to keep records of calls that
are terminated.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, alternatives,
specific to small businesses, that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)—
(4).
The Commission considers the
proposed rule changes in the IP Relay
Fraud FNPRM as a possible means of
achieving the competing public policy
goals of ensuring that TRS works as a
transparent conduit for the calling and
called parties and preventing the misuse
of IP Relay and VRS services. The IP
Relay Fraud FNPRM invites comment
on a number of alternative means by
which IP Relay and VRS providers
might undertake to curtail illegitimate
calls. For example, the IP Relay Fraud
FNPRM asks if the Commission should
amend TRS rules to allow providers the
discretion to refuse or terminate
illegitimate IP Relay and VRS calls.
The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM also seeks
comment on other means by which the
Commission might curtail the misuse of
IP Relay and VRS, including by
adopting a registration requirement. The
Commission also asks if there may be
alternatives to requiring registration or
imposing new obligations on providers,
such as waiving certain TRS calls. These
alternatives could mitigate any burden
the proposed registration requirement
might have on small businesses.
The Commission notes that by
promulgating the rules in allowing the
provider and the CA the discretion to
terminate apparent illegitimate calls, it
would lessen an adverse economic
impact on small businesses. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
proposed rule change would save many
small businesses that may be affected by
these illegitimate calls. For instance,
small businesses are more vulnerable
with illegitimate calls involving
fraudulent credit card purchases
because they often are not equipped to
verify the credit card numbers. The
proposed rule change that calls for
granting the provider and the CA the
discretion to terminate apparent
illegitimate calls would not create an
additional financial burden on any
provider, including small businesses.
The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM
contemplates requiring the providers to
maintain records of terminated calls,
and seeks comment on what these
records should include. The IP Relay
Fraud FNPRM notes, however, that such
a requirement might conflict with the
Commission’s rules, and also seeks
comment on this issue. The IP Relay
Fraud FNPRM therefore contemplates
that it may not be possible to require
providers to maintain any records.
Further, the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM
also invites comment on whether any
proposed rule change and/or
requirement should be permanent or
temporary. To the extent the adopted
measure requiring the providers to
maintain records is temporary, any
burden on small businesses would be
lessened.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o),
225, 303(r), 403, 624(g), and 706 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o),
225, 303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606, this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
The Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–8489 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31137
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AT92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides
ssp. viminea (willowy monardella)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea (willowy monardella) and the
availability of a draft economic analysis
of the proposed designation of critical
habitat. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the proposed rule and the associated
draft economic analysis. Comments
previously submitted on the November
9, 2005, proposed critical habitat rule
need not be resubmitted as they have
already been incorporated into the
public record and will be fully
considered in our final determination.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES
section) on or before July 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on
the proposed rule or draft economic
analysis, you may submit your
comments and materials identified by
RIN 1018–AT92, by any of the following
methods:
(1) E-mail: fw8cfwomolivi@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 1018–AT92’’ in the
subject line.
(2) Fax: 760/431–9624.
(3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA
92011.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may
hand-deliver written documents to our
office (see ADDRESSES).
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/
431–9440; facsimile, 760/431–9624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
31138
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
comment period. We intend that any
final action resulting from our critical
habitat proposal be as accurate and
effective as possible. Therefore, we
solicit comments or suggestions from
the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning the
proposed rule and/or the associated
draft economic analysis. On the basis of
public comment on the proposed rule
and the draft economic analysis, and the
conclusions of the final economic
analysis, we may find during the
development of our final determination
that some areas do not contain the
necessary features essential to the
conservation of the species, are
appropriate for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate
for exclusion. 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
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.),
including whether it is prudent to
designate critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the
amount and distribution of willowy
monardella habitat, and what habitat
contains the necessary features essential
to the conservation of the species and
why;
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat;
(4) The proposed exclusion of habitat
on Federal and non-Federal lands
within the San Diego Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Program (MSCP)
and the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) established between the Bureau
of Land Management, the Service, the
County of San Diego, the City of San
Diego, and California Department of
Fish and Game, in cooperation with the
San Diego Association of Governments
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please
see Application of Sections 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act for details on the
MSCP and MOU section of the proposed
rule (70 FR 67956; November 9, 2005)).
Please provide information
demonstrating the benefits of including
or excluding these lands from the
critical habitat designation. If the
Secretary determines the benefits of
including the lands outweigh the
benefits of excluding them, they will not
be excluded from critical habitat;
(5) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities;
(6) 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.
(7) Whether the economic analysis
identifies all State and local costs. If not,
what other costs should be included;
(8) Whether the economic analysis
makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely
regulatory changes imposed as a result
of the listing of the species or the
designation of critical habitat;
(9) Whether the economic analysis
correctly assesses the effect on regional
costs associated with land and water use
controls that derive from the
designation;
(10) Whether the designation will
result in disproportionate economic
impacts to specific areas that should be
evaluated for possible exclusion from
any final designation;
(11) Whether the economic analysis
appropriately identifies all costs that
could result from the designation or
coextensively from the listing;
(12) Whether there is information
about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities
planned in critical habitat areas that
would offset the costs and allow for the
conservation of critical habitat areas;
and
(13) Whether the benefit 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 period on the proposed rule
need not be resubmitted. If you wish to
comment, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning the
draft economic analysis and the
proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES). Our final
determination concerning designation of
critical habitat for willowy monardella
will take into consideration all
comments and any additional
information received during the
previous comment period and this
reopened comment period (70 FR
67956). On the basis of public comment
on the critical habitat proposal, the draft
economic analysis, and the final
economic analysis, we may during the
development of our final determination
find that areas proposed do not contain
the necessary features essential to the
conservation of the species, are
appropriate for exclusion under section
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate
for exclusion.
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours. We will
not consider anonymous comments and
we will make all comments available for
public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used
in preparation of the proposal to
designate critical habitat, will be
available for public inspection, by
appointment during normal business
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the
proposed critical habitat rule for
willowy monardella and the draft
economic analysis are also available on
the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/
carlsbad. In the event that our Internet
connection is not functional, please
obtain copies of documents directly
from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Background
On November 9, 2005, we published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(70 FR 67956) to designate critical
habitat for willowy monardella under
the Act. We identified approximately
2,539 acres (ac) (1,028 hectares (ha)) of
habitat occupied at the time of listing
and containing the necessary features
essential to the conservation of the
species. We proposed to designate
approximately 115 ac (47 ha) of critical
habitat in one unit in San Diego County,
California. Approximately 1,863 ac (754
ha) of the 2,539 ac (1,028 ha) of habitat
are covered under an Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar;
therefore, this area is exempted from
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act. Approximately 560 ac (227 ha)
is proposed for exclusion from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
because this area is covered under the
Multiple Species Conservation Program
for southwestern San Diego County or
conserved as open space (Otay
Mountain Wilderness). The first public
comment period for the willowy
monardella proposed critical habitat
rule closed on January 9, 2006. For more
information on this species, refer to the
final rule listing this species as
endangered, published in the Federal
Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR
54938).
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as the specific areas within
the geographic area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
features essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special
management considerations or
protection, and specific areas outside
the geographic area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat by any activity funded,
authorized, or carried out by any
Federal agency. Federal agencies
proposing actions affecting areas
designated as critical habitat must
consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, pursuant to section
7(a)(2) of the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate or revise critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available, after taking
into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any
other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We
have prepared a draft economic analysis
of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67956),
proposed designation of critical habitat
for willowy monardella.
The draft economic analysis considers
the potential economic effects of actions
relating to the conservation of willowy
monardella, including costs associated
with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act,
and including those attributable to
designating critical habitat. It further
considers the economic effects of
protective measures taken as a result of
other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for willowy
monardella in proposed critical habitat
areas and areas proposed for exclusion.
The 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). This
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 decisionmakers to assess whether the effects of
the designation might unduly burden a
particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this analysis considered those
costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the final designation of
critical habitat.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
The draft economic analysis estimates
that, because all of the proposed critical
habitat is conserved or will be
conserved under the Multi Species
Conservation Program and there are no
effects to future development, and there
are no potential economic impacts
anticipated from the critical designation
as proposed. There are some costs
associated with plant monitoring and
management on preserve lands;
however, these costs are minimal.
Additionally, the Otay Mountain
wilderness area, if designated as critical
habitat, would also presumably result in
small administrative costs resulting
from the inclusion of critical habitat
analyses in future Section 7
consultations involving the plant. Give
the wilderness status of the lands, the
number of future consultations would
likely be very low and likely
conservation measures minimal. But
there would likely be some small cost.
We will evaluate any potential costs
associated with the Otay Mountain
wilderness area in the final rulemaking.
Of the approximately 2,539 acres (ac)
(1,028 hectares (ha)) identified as
proposed critical habitat for this species,
approximately 560 ac (227 ha) are
covered under the MSCP or conserved
as open space (Otay Mountain
Wilderness) and are proposed for
exclusion from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore,
since the MSCP was approved in 1997
before the 1998 listing of willowy
monardella there are no coextensive
costs associated with the listing of the
species as endangered since
conservation measures benefiting the
species were incorporated into the Multi
Species Conservation Program prior to
its listing. Also, the analysis estimates
that there will be no future development
costs for the 115 ac (47 ha) of proposed
critical habitat not proposed for
exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Please refer to Section III.3.2 of the draft
economic analysis and the ‘‘Application
of Section 4(a)(3) and Possible
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of the proposed rule (70 FR
67956) for a more detailed discussion of
the Multi Species Conservation
Program.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order
12866, this document is a significant
rule in that it may raise novel legal and
policy issues. However, because the
draft economic analysis indicates that
the potential economic impacts
associated with the proposed
designation of critical habitat are
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31139
negligent, we do not anticipate that this
final rule will have 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) did not
formally review the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (e.g., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. In our proposed rule, we
withheld our determination of whether
this designation would result in a
significant effect as defined under
SBREFA until we completed our draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation so that we would have the
factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business
Administration (SBA), small entities
include small organizations, such as
independent nonprofit organizations,
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
31140
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
willowy monardella would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of
economic activities (e.g., residential,
industrial, and commercial
development). We considered each
industry or category individually to
determine if certification is appropriate.
In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement; some kinds of
activities are unlikely to have any
Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by the designation of critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities
are not affected by the designation.
If this proposed critical habitat
designation is made final, Federal
agencies must consult with us 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.
Our analysis determined that potential
costs involving conservation measures
for willowy monardella incurred for
activities involving non-Federal
agencies (residential, commercial, and
industrial development) would be
negligible due to the fact that there are
minimal economic effects of the
proposed critical habitat. These minimal
costs are associated with plant
monitoring and management on
preserve lands.
Based on this data, we have
determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in
particular to land developers or farmers
in San Diego County since private lands
proposed for critical habitat are part of
a designated open space preserve with
no plans for farming or development as
stated earlier in the Background section.
As such, we are certifying that this
proposed designation of critical habitat
would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Please refer to
Section V.2 of our draft economic
analysis of this proposed designation for
a more detailed discussion of potential
economic impacts to small business
entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This
proposed rule is considered a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866
because it raises novel legal and policy
issues. On the basis of our draft
economic analysis, the proposed critical
habitat designation is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Please refer to Section V.1 of our draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential effects on energy
supply.
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,
tribal governments, or the private sector
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments’’
with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a
condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also
excludes ‘‘a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates
to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and
Tribal governments under entitlement
authority,’’ if the provision would
‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, permits, or otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat. However, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal 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 onto
State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As discussed in the
draft economic analysis, all proposed
critical habitat areas are already
identified and/or conserved as open
space or covered by a habitat
conservation plan. Consequently, we do
not believe that critical habitat
designation would significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of proposing critical
habitat for willowy monardella. Critical
habitat designation does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. In conclusion,
the designation of critical habitat for
willowy monardella does not pose
significant takings implications.
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 19, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6–8459 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
31141
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31137-31141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8459]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea
(willowy monardella)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy
monardella) and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic
analysis. Comments previously submitted on the November 9, 2005,
proposed critical habitat rule need not be resubmitted as they have
already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully
considered in our final determination.
DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see
ADDRESSES section) on or before July 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the proposed rule or draft
economic analysis, you may submit your comments and materials
identified by RIN 1018-AT92, by any of the following methods:
(1) E-mail: fw8cfwomolivi@fws.gov. Include ``RIN 1018-AT92'' in the
subject line.
(2) Fax: 760/431-9624.
(3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-deliver written documents
to our office (see ADDRESSES).
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/431-9440; facsimile, 760/431-
9624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened
[[Page 31138]]
comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from our
critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule
and/or the associated draft economic analysis. On the basis of public
comment on the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis, and the
conclusions of the final economic analysis, we may find during the
development of our final determination that some areas do not contain
the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species,
are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are
not appropriate for exclusion. 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 Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.), including
whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of willowy
monardella habitat, and what habitat contains the necessary features
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) The proposed exclusion of habitat on Federal and non-Federal
lands within the San Diego Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Program (MSCP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established
between the Bureau of Land Management, the Service, the County of San
Diego, the City of San Diego, and California Department of Fish and
Game, in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please see Application of Sections
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for
details on the MSCP and MOU section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956;
November 9, 2005)). Please provide information demonstrating the
benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical
habitat designation. If the Secretary determines the benefits of
including the lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will
not be excluded from 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;
(6) 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.
(7) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local
costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
(8) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical
habitat;
(9) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with land and water use controls that derive
from the designation;
(10) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion from any final designation;
(11) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the
listing;
(12) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas; and
(13) Whether the benefit 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 period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES). Our final determination concerning designation
of critical habitat for willowy monardella will take into consideration
all comments and any additional information received during the
previous comment period and this reopened comment period (70 FR 67956).
On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the
draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during
the development of our final determination find that areas proposed do
not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the
species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments and we will
make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation
used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will
be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal
business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for willowy
monardella and the draft economic analysis are also available on the
Internet at https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad. In the event that our Internet
connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents
directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Background
On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (70 FR 67956) to designate critical habitat for willowy
monardella under the Act. We identified approximately 2,539 acres (ac)
(1,028 hectares (ha)) of habitat occupied at the time of listing and
containing the necessary features essential to the conservation of the
species. We proposed to designate approximately 115 ac (47 ha) of
critical habitat in one unit in San Diego County, California.
Approximately 1,863 ac (754 ha) of the 2,539 ac (1,028 ha) of habitat
are covered under an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan
(INRMP) for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; therefore, this area is
exempted from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approximately 560 ac (227 ha) is proposed for exclusion from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because this area is covered
under the Multiple Species Conservation Program for southwestern San
Diego County or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness). The
first public comment period for the willowy monardella proposed
critical habitat rule closed on January 9, 2006. For more information
on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as
endangered, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63
FR 54938).
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical
or biological
[[Page 31139]]
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection, and specific
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final,
section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out
by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting
areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the
effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67956), proposed
designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of willowy monardella,
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for willowy monardella in proposed critical habitat areas
and areas proposed for exclusion. The 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). This 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, this analysis
considered those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the
final designation of critical habitat.
The draft economic analysis estimates that, because all of the
proposed critical habitat is conserved or will be conserved under the
Multi Species Conservation Program and there are no effects to future
development, and there are no potential economic impacts anticipated
from the critical designation as proposed. There are some costs
associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands;
however, these costs are minimal. Additionally, the Otay Mountain
wilderness area, if designated as critical habitat, would also
presumably result in small administrative costs resulting from the
inclusion of critical habitat analyses in future Section 7
consultations involving the plant. Give the wilderness status of the
lands, the number of future consultations would likely be very low and
likely conservation measures minimal. But there would likely be some
small cost. We will evaluate any potential costs associated with the
Otay Mountain wilderness area in the final rulemaking.
Of the approximately 2,539 acres (ac) (1,028 hectares (ha))
identified as proposed critical habitat for this species, approximately
560 ac (227 ha) are covered under the MSCP or conserved as open space
(Otay Mountain Wilderness) and are proposed for exclusion from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, since the MSCP
was approved in 1997 before the 1998 listing of willowy monardella
there are no coextensive costs associated with the listing of the
species as endangered since conservation measures benefiting the
species were incorporated into the Multi Species Conservation Program
prior to its listing. Also, the analysis estimates that there will be
no future development costs for the 115 ac (47 ha) of proposed critical
habitat not proposed for exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please
refer to Section III.3.2 of the draft economic analysis and the
``Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Possible Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956) for a
more detailed discussion of the Multi Species Conservation Program.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates that the
potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of
critical habitat are negligent, we do not anticipate that this final
rule will have 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) did not formally review the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, 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
[[Page 31140]]
willowy monardella would affect a substantial number of small entities,
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and
commercial development). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us 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. Our analysis determined that potential
costs involving conservation measures for willowy monardella incurred
for activities involving non-Federal agencies (residential, commercial,
and industrial development) would be negligible due to the fact that
there are minimal economic effects of the proposed critical habitat.
These minimal costs are associated with plant monitoring and management
on preserve lands.
Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers
or farmers in San Diego County since private lands proposed for
critical habitat are part of a designated open space preserve with no
plans for farming or development as stated earlier in the Background
section. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of
critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Section V.2 of
our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business
entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft
economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Section V.1 of our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.
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, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; 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, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis,
all proposed critical habitat areas are already identified and/or
conserved as open space or covered by a habitat conservation plan.
Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such,
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for willowy monardella. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In
conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella
does not pose significant takings implications.
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 31141]]
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 19, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6-8459 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P