Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Diamond Darter and Designation of Critical Habitat, 19172-19176 [2013-07306]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19172
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
column 1, correct the DATES section to
read as follows:
DATES: Submit comments on or before
May 22, 2013 and replies on or before
June 21, 2013.’’
PART 71—FEDERAL OPERATING
PERMIT PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Revise § 71.6 paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B)
to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
§ 71.6
[FR Doc. 2013–07264 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am]
■
Permit content.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The identification of the method(s)
or other means used by the owner or
operator for determining the compliance
status with each term and condition
during the certification period. Such
methods and other means shall include,
at a minimum, the methods and means
required under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section. If necessary, the owner or
operator also shall identify any other
material information that must be
included in the certification to comply
with section 113(c)(2) of the Act, which
prohibits knowingly making a false
certification or omitting material
information;
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–07266 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
[IB Docket No. 12–376; FCC 12–161]
Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft
Communicating with Fixed-Satellite
Service Geostationary-Orbit Space
Stations
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission is correcting the comment
and reply comment dates for a proposed
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register of March 8, 2013. The
document proposed rules for Earth
Stations Aboard Aircraft.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Kelly, Satellite Division,
International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418–
0748, Andrea.Kelly@fcc.gov, or Howard
Griboff, Policy Division, International
Bureau, FCC, (202) 418–1460,
Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov.
Correction
In the proposed rule of March 8, 2013,
FR Doc. 2013–04429, on page 14952,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2012–0045;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY12
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Status for the
Diamond Darter and Designation of
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period and availability of draft
economic analysis.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our July 26, 2012, proposed listing
and designation of critical habitat for
the diamond darter (Crystallaria
cincotta) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also
announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal.
We are reopening the comment period
to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the proposed rule, associated DEA,
and amended required determinations
section. Comments previously
submitted on the proposed rule need
not be resubmitted, as they will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule.
We will consider all comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 29, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the proposed rule
and the draft economic analysis on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS–R5–ES–2012–
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0045, or by mail from the West Virginia
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Comment submission: You may
submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket
No. FWS–R5–ES–2012–0045, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2012–
0045; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Schmidt, Acting Field Office
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, West Virginia Field Office, 694
Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; by
telephone (304) 636–6586; or by
facsimile (304) 636–7824. Any person
who uses a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period on our proposed listing
and designation of critical habitat for
the diamond darter (Crystallaria
cincotta) that was published in the
Federal Register on July 26, 2012 (77 FR
43906), our DEA, and the amended
required determinations provided in
this document. We will consider
information and recommendations from
all interested parties.
We are also notifying the public that
we will publish two separate rules for
the final listing determination and the
final critical habitat determination for
the diamond darter. The final listing
rule will publish under the existing
docket number, FWS–R5–ES–2012–
0045, and the final critical habitat
designation will publish under new
docket number FWS–R5–ES–2013–
0019.
We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested
parties as to both determinations. As to
the proposed listing determination, we
are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of the
species, and ongoing conservation
measures for the species and its habitat.
(4) Current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species and
possible impacts of these activities on
this species.
As to the proposed critical habitat
determination, we are particularly
interested in comments concerning:
(5) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act,
including whether there are threats to
the species from human activity, the
degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation
such that the designation of critical
habitat is not prudent.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of the
species’ habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing that contain
features essential for the conservation of
the species we should include in the
designation and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential to the
conservation of the species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(8) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are
subject to these impacts.
(9) Information on the extent to which
the description of economic impacts in
the DEA is complete and accurate.
(10) The likelihood of adverse social
reactions to the designation of critical
habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and
how the consequences of such reactions,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
if likely to occur, would relate to the
conservation and regulatory benefits of
the proposed critical habitat
designation.
(11) 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.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rule (77 FR
43906) during the initial comment
period from July 26, 2012, to September
24, 2012, please do not resubmit them.
We have incorporated them into the
public record as part of the original
comment period, and we will fully
consider them in the preparation of our
final determination.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rule
or DEA by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all
hardcopy comments on https://
www.regulations.gov as well. If you
submit a hardcopy comment that
includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing the proposed rule and
DEA, will be available for public
inspection on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2012–0045 for the
proposed listing action and at Docket
No. FWS–R5–ES–2013–0019 for the
proposed critical habitat designation, or
by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, West Virginia Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this
document only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical
habitat for the diamond darter. For more
information on the diamond darter, its
habitat, or previous Federal actions,
refer to the proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat published
in the Federal Register on July 26, 2012
(77 FR 43906), which is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket
Number FWS–R5–ES–2012–0045) or
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19173
from the West Virginia Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On July 26, 2012, we published a
proposed rule to list the diamond darter
as endangered and to designate critical
habitat (77 FR 43906). We proposed to
designate a total of approximately 123
river miles of critical habitat in
Kanawha and Clay Counties, West
Virginia, and Edmonson, Hart, and
Green Counties, Kentucky. That
proposal had a 60-day comment period,
ending September 24, 2012.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical
habitat as the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management
considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination that
such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. If the
proposed rule is made final, section 7 of
the Act will prohibit destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency.
Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting critical habitat must consult
with us on the effects of their proposed
actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate critical habitat based upon
the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, impact on national security, or
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
We may exclude an area from critical
habitat if we determine that the benefits
of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical
habitat, provided such exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the
species.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider,
among other things, the additional
regulatory benefits that area would
receive from the protection from adverse
modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus (activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or
authorized by Federal agencies), the
educational benefits of mapping areas
containing essential features that aid in
the recovery of the listed species, and
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
19174
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
any benefits that may result from
designation due to State or Federal laws
that may apply to critical habitat. When
considering the benefits of exclusion,
we consider, among other things,
whether exclusion of a specific area is
likely to result in conservation; the
continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or
implementation of a management plan.
In the case of the diamond darter, the
benefits of critical habitat include
public awareness of the presence of the
fish and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus
exists, increased habitat protection for
the diamond darter due to protection
from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat. In
practice, situations with a Federal nexus
exist primarily on Federal lands or for
projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
We have not proposed to exclude any
areas from critical habitat. However, the
final decision on whether to exclude
any areas will be based on the best
scientific data available at the time of
the final designation, including
information obtained during the
comment period and information about
the economic impact of designation.
Accordingly, our DEA concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation is
available for review and comment (see
ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify
and analyze the potential economic
impacts associated with the proposed
critical habitat designation for the
diamond darter. The DEA separates
conservation measures into two distinct
categories according to ‘‘without critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenarios. The ‘‘without critical habitat’’
scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, considering protections
otherwise afforded to the diamond
darter (including listing under the Act,
as well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts specifically due to designation
of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, these incremental
conservation measures and associated
economic impacts would not occur but
for the designation. Conservation
measures implemented under the
baseline (without critical habitat)
scenario are described qualitatively
within the DEA, but economic impacts
associated with these measures are not
quantified. Economic impacts are only
quantified for conservation measures
implemented specifically due to the
designation of critical habitat (i.e.,
incremental impacts). For a further
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
description of the methodology of the
analysis, see Chapter 2, ‘‘Framework for
the analysis,’’ of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of
the foreseeable potential economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the diamond darter over
the next 20 years, which was
determined to be the appropriate period
for analysis because limited planning
information is available for most
activities to forecast activity levels for
projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The DEA identifies potential
incremental costs as a result of the
proposed critical habitat designation;
these are those costs attributed to
critical habitat over and above those
baseline costs attributed to listing. The
DEA quantifies economic impacts of the
diamond darter conservation efforts
associated with the following categories
of activity: (1) Resource extraction (coal,
gravel, and rock mining, and oil and
natural gas exploration) and utilities; (2)
timber management, agriculture, and
grazing; (3) other in-stream work; (4)
transportation (roads, highways,
bridges); and (5) water quality/sewage
management.
The DEA concludes that the types of
conservation efforts requested by the
Service during section 7 consultation
regarding the diamond darter are not
expected to change due to critical
habitat designation. The Service
believes that results of consultation
under the adverse modification and
jeopardy standards are likely to be
similar because: (1) The primary
constituent elements that define critical
habitat are also essential for the survival
of the diamond darter; (2) the diamond
darter is limited in its range; and (3) the
number of individuals in the surviving
population is very small. In addition,
although one of the proposed critical
habitat units for the diamond darter is
unoccupied, incremental impacts of the
critical habitat designation will be
limited for the following reasons: (1)
The unit is currently occupied by nine
federally listed endangered mussel
species: northern riffleshell (Epioblasma
torulosa rangiana), snuffbox (E.
triquetra), pink mucket (Lampsilis
abrupta), ring pink (Obovaria retusa),
rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum),
clubshell (P. clava), fanshell
(Cyprogenia stegaria), spectaclecase
(Cumberlandia monodonta), and
sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus); and
(2) the unit is situated at least partially
within the Mammoth Cave National
Park, which is managed according to a
land and resource management plan
that includes specific measures to
protect sensitive species.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The DEA concludes that incremental
impacts of critical habitat designation
are limited to additional administrative
costs of consultations and that indirect
incremental impacts are unlikely to
result from the designation of critical
habitat for the diamond darter. The
present value of the total direct
(administrative) incremental cost of
critical habitat designation is $800,000
over the next 20 years assuming a 7
percent discount rate, or $70,000 on an
annualized basis. Transportation
activities are likely to be subject to the
greatest incremental impacts at
$320,000 over the next 20 years,
followed by timber management,
agriculture, and grazing at $260,000;
resource extraction at $150,000; other
in-stream work at $50,000; and water
quality/sewage management at $18,000
(present values over 20 years assuming
a 7 percent discount rate).
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the DEA, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended
required determinations.
Required Determinations—Amended
In our July 26, 2012, proposed rule
(77 FR 43906), we indicated that we
would defer our determination of
compliance with several statutes and
executive orders until the information
concerning potential economic impacts
of the designation and potential effects
on landowners and stakeholders became
available in the DEA. We have now
made use of the DEA data to make these
determinations. In this document, we
affirm the information in our proposed
rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.)
12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning
and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O.
13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy,
Supply, Distribution, and Use), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and
the President’s memorandum of April
29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However,
based on the DEA data, we are
amending our required determinations
concerning the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Based on our DEA of the proposed
designation, we provide our analysis for
determining whether the proposed rule
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on comments we receive,
we may revise this determination as part
of our final rule.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
diamond darter would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of
economic activities, such as resource
extraction; timber management,
agriculture, and grazing; other in-stream
activities; transportation; and water
quality/sewer management. In order to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
determine whether it is appropriate for
our agency to certify that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, we considered
each industry or category individually.
In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical
habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; designation of critical
habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. If we finalize the
proposed listing for this species, in
areas where the diamond darter are
present, Federal agencies will be
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
fund, permit, or implement that may
affect the species. If we finalize the
proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
would be incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation
of conservation actions related to the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the diamond darter. We do not
expect the critical habitat designation to
result in impacts to small entities for
transportation and water quality/sewer
management activities, as consultations
considering these activities do not
involve third parties. We anticipate 12
small entities over 20 years, or less than
1 entity in a single year, could be
affected by other in-stream work at a
cost of $875 to $8,800 each, representing
less than 1 percent of annual revenues.
In the resource extraction category, 50
small entities over 20 years, or 3 entities
in a single year, could be affected by
utility pipeline installation at a cost of
$875 to $8,800 each, representing less
than 1 percent of annual revenues, and
6 small entities could be affected by
bituminous coal and lignite surface
mining within a single year, at a cost of
$875 to $5,300 each, representing less
than 1 percent of annual revenues. One
hundred and ninety small entities could
be affected by timber management,
agriculture, and grazing within a single
year, at a cost of $880 to $22,000 each,
representing less than 1 percent of
annual revenues. Please refer to the DEA
of the proposed critical habitat
designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic
impacts.
The Service’s current understanding
of recent case law is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19175
the potential impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking; therefore, they are not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to those entities not directly
regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened
species only has a regulatory effect
where a Federal action agency is
involved in a particular action that may
affect the designated critical habitat.
Under these circumstances, only the
Federal action agency is directly
regulated by the designation, and,
therefore, consistent with the Service’s
current interpretation of RFA and recent
case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to
those identified for Federal action
agencies. Under this interpretation,
there is no requirement under the RFA
to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated, such as
small businesses. However, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal
agencies to assess costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and
qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the
current practice of the Service to assess
to the extent practicable these potential
impacts, if sufficient data are available,
whether or not this analysis is believed
by the Service to be strictly required by
the RFA. In other words, while the
effects analysis required under the RFA
is limited to entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking, the effects analysis
under the Act, consistent with the EO
regulatory analysis requirements, can
take into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly impacted
entities, where practicable and
reasonable.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For the above reasons and
based on currently available
information, we certify that, if
promulgated, the proposed critical
habitat designation would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the West Virginia
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
19176
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 14, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–07306 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocean and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 1206013325–3262–02]
RIN 0648–XA983
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-day Finding on a Petition to List
Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico as
a Distinct Population Segment Under
the Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90–
day finding on a petition from
WildEarth Guardians to list the sperm
whale (Physter macrocephalus) as an
endangered or threatened distinct
population segment (DPS) in the Gulf of
Mexico. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
As a result, we hereby initiate a status
review of sperm whales in the Gulf of
Mexico to determine whether the
petitioned action is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to this species and potential
critical habitat from any interested
party.
DATES: Scientific and commercial
information pertinent to the petitioned
action must be received by May 28,
2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information or data, identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2013–0059,’’ by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic information via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. To submit
information via the e-Rulemaking
Portal, first click the ‘‘submit a
comment’’ icon, then enter ‘‘NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0059’’ in the keyword
search. Locate the document you wish
to provide information on from the
resulting list and click on the ‘‘Submit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
a Comment’’ icon to the right of that
line.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Instructions: All information received
is a part of the public record and may
be posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personally
identifiable information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted may be publicly accessible.
Do not submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. NMFS will
accept information from anonymous
sources, although submitting comments
anonymously will prevent NMFS from
contacting you if NMFS has difficulty
retrieving your submission.
Attachments to electronic submissions
will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Coll, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 427–8455; or Marta
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 9, 2011, we received a
petition from WildEarth Guardians to
list the sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus) in the Gulf of Mexico as
an endangered or threatened DPS under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA);
sperm whales are currently listed as a
single endangered species throughout
their global range (35 FR 8495; June 2,
1970). The petitioner also requested
designation of critical habitat
concurrent with the listing to help
ensure survival of sperm whales in the
Gulf of Mexico. Copies of the petition
are available from us (see ADDRESSES,
above).
ESA Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A)
of the ESA, to the maximum extent
practicable and within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce is required to make a
finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted,
and to promptly publish such finding in
the Federal Register (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that
substantial scientific or commercial
information in a petition indicates the
petitioned action may be warranted, we
are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concerned, during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, within 12
months of receipt of the petition we
conclude the review with a finding as to
whether, in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a
comprehensive review of all best
available information, as compared to
the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, which focuses on information set
forth in the petition, this 90-day finding
does not prejudge the outcome of the
status review.
Under the ESA, the term ‘‘species’’
means a species, a subspecies, or a DPS
of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). A joint NMFS–USFWS policy
clarifies the Services’ interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘Distinct Population
Segment,’’ or DPS (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996). The DPS Policy requires the
consideration of two elements when
evaluating whether a vertebrate
population segment qualifies as a DPS
under the ESA: (1) discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to
which it belongs.
A species is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and
‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6)
and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C.
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA
and our implementing regulations, we
determine whether a species is
threatened or endangered based on any
one or a combination of the following
section 4(a)(1) factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) any other natural
or manmade factors affecting the
species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1),
50 CFR 424.11(c)).
The ESA requires us to designate
critical habitat concurrent with final
listing rule ‘‘to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable’’ (16 U.S.C.
1533 (a)(3)(A)). The ESA defines
‘‘critical habitat’’ as ‘‘* * * the specific
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is
listed * * * on which are found those
physical and biological features (I)
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19172-19176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07306]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY12
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Diamond Darter and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and availability of
draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening
of the public comment period on our July 26, 2012, proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat for the diamond darter (Crystallaria
cincotta) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of
the proposed designation of critical habitat and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposed rule, associated DEA, and amended
required determinations section. Comments previously submitted on the
proposed rule need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered
in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or
before April 29, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed
rule and the draft economic analysis on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045, or by mail
from the West Virginia Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045, which
is the docket number for this rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schmidt, Acting Field Office
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office,
694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV 26241; by telephone (304) 636-6586; or by
facsimile (304) 636-7824. Any person who uses a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed listing and designation of
critical habitat for the diamond darter (Crystallaria cincotta) that
was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43906),
our DEA, and the amended required determinations provided in this
document. We will consider information and recommendations from all
interested parties.
We are also notifying the public that we will publish two separate
rules for the final listing determination and the final critical
habitat determination for the diamond darter. The final listing rule
will publish under the existing docket number, FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045, and
the final critical habitat designation will publish under new docket
number FWS-R5-ES-2013-0019.
We will consider information and recommendations from all
interested parties as to both determinations. As to the proposed
listing determination, we are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
[[Page 19173]]
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the
species and possible impacts of these activities on this species.
As to the proposed critical habitat determination, we are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of
which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether
that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of the species' habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we
should include in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to
the conservation of the species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(8) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities and the benefits of including or excluding areas from
the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(10) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(11) 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.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77
FR 43906) during the initial comment period from July 26, 2012, to
September 24, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated
them into the public record as part of the original comment period, and
we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final
determination.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that
you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045 for the proposed listing action and at Docket
No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0019 for the proposed critical habitat designation,
or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the
diamond darter. For more information on the diamond darter, its
habitat, or previous Federal actions, refer to the proposed listing and
designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43906), which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R5-ES-2012-0045) or from the
West Virginia Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On July 26, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list the diamond
darter as endangered and to designate critical habitat (77 FR 43906).
We proposed to designate a total of approximately 123 river miles of
critical habitat in Kanawha and Clay Counties, West Virginia, and
Edmonson, Hart, and Green Counties, Kentucky. That proposal had a 60-
day comment period, ending September 24, 2012.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking
into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we
consider, among other things, the additional regulatory benefits that
area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or
destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the
educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features
that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and
[[Page 19174]]
any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal
laws that may apply to critical habitat. When considering the benefits
of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a
specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation,
strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a
management plan.
In the case of the diamond darter, the benefits of critical habitat
include public awareness of the presence of the fish and the importance
of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased
habitat protection for the diamond darter due to protection from
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice,
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for
projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat.
However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be
based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final
designation, including information obtained during the comment period
and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly,
our DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat designation is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for the diamond darter. The DEA separates conservation
measures into two distinct categories according to ``without critical
habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios. The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections otherwise afforded to the diamond darter
(including listing under the Act, as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes
the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical
habitat for the species. In other words, these incremental conservation
measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the
designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline
(without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within
the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not
quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation
measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical
habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, ``Framework for the
analysis,'' of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
diamond darter over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the
appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is
available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects
beyond a 20-year timeframe. The DEA identifies potential incremental
costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these
are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those
baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic
impacts of the diamond darter conservation efforts associated with the
following categories of activity: (1) Resource extraction (coal,
gravel, and rock mining, and oil and natural gas exploration) and
utilities; (2) timber management, agriculture, and grazing; (3) other
in-stream work; (4) transportation (roads, highways, bridges); and (5)
water quality/sewage management.
The DEA concludes that the types of conservation efforts requested
by the Service during section 7 consultation regarding the diamond
darter are not expected to change due to critical habitat designation.
The Service believes that results of consultation under the adverse
modification and jeopardy standards are likely to be similar because:
(1) The primary constituent elements that define critical habitat are
also essential for the survival of the diamond darter; (2) the diamond
darter is limited in its range; and (3) the number of individuals in
the surviving population is very small. In addition, although one of
the proposed critical habitat units for the diamond darter is
unoccupied, incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation
will be limited for the following reasons: (1) The unit is currently
occupied by nine federally listed endangered mussel species: northern
riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), snuffbox (E. triquetra),
pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), ring pink (Obovaria retusa), rough
pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), clubshell (P. clava), fanshell (Cyprogenia
stegaria), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), and sheepnose
(Plethobasus cyphyus); and (2) the unit is situated at least partially
within the Mammoth Cave National Park, which is managed according to a
land and resource management plan that includes specific measures to
protect sensitive species.
The DEA concludes that incremental impacts of critical habitat
designation are limited to additional administrative costs of
consultations and that indirect incremental impacts are unlikely to
result from the designation of critical habitat for the diamond darter.
The present value of the total direct (administrative) incremental cost
of critical habitat designation is $800,000 over the next 20 years
assuming a 7 percent discount rate, or $70,000 on an annualized basis.
Transportation activities are likely to be subject to the greatest
incremental impacts at $320,000 over the next 20 years, followed by
timber management, agriculture, and grazing at $260,000; resource
extraction at $150,000; other in-stream work at $50,000; and water
quality/sewage management at $18,000 (present values over 20 years
assuming a 7 percent discount rate).
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our July 26, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 43906), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and executive orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now
made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988
(Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and
Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on
the DEA data, we are amending our required determinations concerning
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
[[Page 19175]]
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our
DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for
determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on
comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our
final rule.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the diamond darter would affect a substantial number of small entities,
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities, such as resource extraction; timber
management, agriculture, and grazing; other in-stream activities;
transportation; and water quality/sewer management. In order to
determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities
potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. If we finalize the proposed listing
for this species, in areas where the diamond darter are present,
Federal agencies will be required to consult with us under section 7 of
the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect
the species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation
process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the diamond darter.
We do not expect the critical habitat designation to result in impacts
to small entities for transportation and water quality/sewer management
activities, as consultations considering these activities do not
involve third parties. We anticipate 12 small entities over 20 years,
or less than 1 entity in a single year, could be affected by other in-
stream work at a cost of $875 to $8,800 each, representing less than 1
percent of annual revenues. In the resource extraction category, 50
small entities over 20 years, or 3 entities in a single year, could be
affected by utility pipeline installation at a cost of $875 to $8,800
each, representing less than 1 percent of annual revenues, and 6 small
entities could be affected by bituminous coal and lignite surface
mining within a single year, at a cost of $875 to $5,300 each,
representing less than 1 percent of annual revenues. One hundred and
ninety small entities could be affected by timber management,
agriculture, and grazing within a single year, at a cost of $880 to
$22,000 each, representing less than 1 percent of annual revenues.
Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation
for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking;
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not
directly regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these
potential impacts, if sufficient data are available, whether or not
this analysis is believed by the Service to be strictly required by the
RFA. In other words, while the effects analysis required under the RFA
is limited to entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the
effects analysis under the Act, consistent with the EO regulatory
analysis requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and
reasonable.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
West Virginia Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
[[Page 19176]]
Dated: March 14, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-07306 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
