National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Procedures; Addition to Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 39307-39309 [2013-15707]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: The Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act of
1974, (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq.,
and Regulation X, codified at 24 CFR
3500, require real estate settlement
service providers to give homebuyers
certain disclosure information at and
before settlement, and pursuant to the
servicing of the loan and escrow
account. This includes a Special
Information Booklet, a Good Faith
Estimate, a Servicing Disclosure
Statement, the Form HUD–1 or Form
HUD–1A, and when applicable an
Initial Escrow Account Statement, an
Annual Escrow Account Statement, a
Consumer Disclosure for Voluntary
Escrow Account Payments, an Affiliated
Business Arrangement Disclosure, and a
Servicing Transfer Disclosure.
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank Act), rulemaking authority
for and certain enforcement authorities
with respect to the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of
1974, as amended by Section 461 of the
Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act
of 1983 (HURRA), and other various
amendments, transferred from the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on
July 21, 2011. The Dodd-Frank Act also
directed the CFPB to integrate certain
disclosures required by the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) with certain
disclosures required by the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of
1974. The CFPB expects the content and
format of information collection forms
under this clearance, HUD’s existing
HUD–1/1A and GFE forms, to be
significantly revised or replaced by
rulemaking. The CFPB published
proposed rules in July and August of
2012 to that effect.
Historically, in order to satisfy
information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), the HUD–1/1A and GFE listed
HUD’s Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number, 2502–
0265. While the CFPB will be, upon
OMB approval of this information
collection request, the ‘‘owner’’ of this
information collection, the CFPB
believes that requiring covered persons
to modify existing forms solely to
replace HUD’s OMB control number
with the Bureau’s OMB control number
would impose substantial burden on
covered persons with limited or no net
benefit to consumers. Accordingly, the
CFPB has reached an agreement with
OMB and HUD whereby covered
persons may continue to list HUD’s
OMB control number on the HUD–1/1A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
and GFE forms until a final rule to the
contrary takes effect. Covered persons
also have the option of replacing HUD’s
OMB control number with the Bureau’s
OMB control number on the HUD–1/1A
and GFE forms until a final rule to the
contrary takes effect. Once the CFPB’s
final rule takes effect, regulated industry
will no longer be able to use the HUD
control number.
Estimation of the total numbers of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response: The total number of
annual burden hours needed to prepare
the information is 17,183,450; the
number of respondents is estimated to
be 50,000 generating approximately
149,589,500 responses annually; these
are third party disclosures, the
frequency of response is annually for
one disclosure and as required for
others; and the estimated time per
response varies from 2 minutes to 35
minutes.
B. Solicitation of Public Comment
This notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
parties concerning the collection of
information described in Section A on
the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond; including through
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to
submit comment in response to these
questions.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Date: June 25, 2013.
Colette Pollard,
Department Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–15690 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39307
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
[FWS–HQ–FHC–2013–N044;
FXFR13360900000–134–FF09F14000]
National Environmental Policy Act:
Implementing Procedures; Addition to
Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This notice announces a
proposed categorical exclusion under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The proposed categorical
exclusion pertains to adding species to
the injurious wildlife list under the
Lacey Act. The addition of this
categorical exclusion to the Department
of the Interior’s Departmental Manual
will improve conservation activities by
making the NEPA process for listing
injurious species more efficient.
DATES: We will consider comments we
receive on or before July 31, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: Send
comments to Susan Jewell, by one of the
following methods:
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Suite 700, Arlington, VA
22203; or
• Email: prevent_invasives@fws.gov
(emails must have ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion’’ in the subject line).
Document availability: You may view
the Departmental Manual at https://
elips.doi.gov/elips/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Jewell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703–
358–2416. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf,
please call the Federal Information
Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
NEPA), Federal agencies are required to
consider the potential environmental
impact of agency actions prior to
implementation. Agencies are then
generally required to prepare either an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
However, when a Federal agency
identifies classes of actions that under
normal circumstances do not have a
potentially significant environmental
impact, either individually or
cumulatively, Council on
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
39308
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations allow the agency to establish
a categorical exclusion and to bypass
the completion of an EA or an EIS when
undertaking those actions (40 CFR
1507.3(b); 40 CFR 1508.4). When
appropriately established and applied,
categorical exclusions serve a beneficial
purpose. They allow Federal agencies to
expedite the environmental review
process for proposals that typically do
not require more resource-intensive EAs
or EISs (CEQ 2010).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has identified that it would be
appropriate to provide for a categorical
exclusion for the Federal action of
adding species to the list of injurious
wildlife under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C.
42, as amended; the Act). The Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior,
as delegated to the Service, to prescribe
by regulation those wild mammals, wild
birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans,
amphibians, and reptiles, and the
offspring or eggs of any of the
aforementioned, that are injurious to
human beings, or to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or
to the wildlife or wildlife resources of
the United States. The provisions of the
Act regarding injurious species are
intended to protect human health and
welfare and the human and natural
environments of the United States by
identifying and reducing the threat
posed by certain wildlife species.
Listing these species as injurious under
the Act subsequently prohibits the
species from being imported into the
United States or transported across State
lines.
The listing of species as injurious is,
as an agency action, subject to
environmental review under NEPA
procedures. The Service has generally
prepared EAs for listing rules. A
categorical exclusion would allow the
Service to exercise its authority to
protect human health and welfare,
certain human environments, and trust
resources from harm caused by
injurious species more effectively and
efficiently by precluding the need to
conduct redundant environmental
analyses.
In 2002, the Service used an existing
departmental categorical exclusion
(‘‘Policies, directives, regulations, and
guidelines: that are of an administrative,
financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature; or whose environmental effects
are too broad, speculative, or conjectural
to lend themselves to meaningful
analysis and will later be subject to the
NEPA process, either collectively or
case-by-case’’ (43 CFR 46.210(i)) in two
listing actions. Upon further review, the
Service believes that this is not the best
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
description of why injurious species
listings do not have a significant effect
on the human environment. Therefore,
the Service is pursuing the addition of
a new categorical exclusion for the
listing of injurious species under the
Act.
Proposed Categorical Exclusion
The Department of the Interior is
proposing to add a categorical exclusion
to the Department Manual at 516 DM
8.5 C, which covers ‘‘Permit and
Regulatory Functions.’’ This section
includes approved categorical
exclusions that address, among other
things, the issuance of regulations
pertaining to wildlife. This proposed
addition would provide for a categorical
exclusion for only the regulatory action
of listing species as injurious (that is,
adding a species to the list). The
regulatory listing action places the
species on a prohibited list, which
prohibits their importation into the
United States and interstate
transportation. Thus, the activities
covered under the categorical exclusion
are simply to keep species out of the
country that are injurious or to prevent
their spread across State lines.
The categorical exclusion would not
cover, for example, control actions (such
as constructing barriers) or eradication
actions (such as applying pesticides).
Any such injurious species management
measures conducted by any Federal
agency would undergo appropriate
NEPA analysis and documentation prior
to implementation of the action. The
categorical exclusion would also not
cover the issuance of permits (available
for individual specimens intended for
zoological, educational, medical, or
scientific use), which is already covered
under an existing categorical exclusion
(516 DM 8.5 C(1)). The categorical
exclusion would not cover the removal
of species from the injurious wildlife
list under the Act.
Additionally, application of the
proposed categorical exclusion would
be subject to a review of extraordinary
circumstances established in regulation
by the Department of the Interior (see 50
CFR 46.215). Extraordinary
circumstances would be subject to the
factors or circumstances that would
cause an otherwise categorically
excludable action to require further
analysis in an EA or EIS. Thus,
notwithstanding the existence of this
categorical exclusion, the Service would
have to develop an EA or EIS if it found
the extraordinary circumstances applied
to the listing of a particular injurious
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis
The intent of the proposed categorical
exclusion is to more effectively protect
the human and natural environments of
the United States from injurious species
by making the listing process under the
Act more efficient. The following three
justifications support the categorical
exclusion:
(1) Maintaining the environmental
status quo. The listing action preserves
the environmental status quo. That is,
these listings ensure that certain
potential effects associated with
introduction of species that have been
found to be injurious do not occur. In
this way, injurious wildlife listings
maintain the state of the affected
environment into the future—the state
of the environment prior to listing or
potential introduction in the absence of
a listing. Thus, prohibiting a
nonindigenous injurious species from
being introduced into an area in which
it does not naturally occur cannot have
a significant effect on the human
environment.
Because the proposed categorical
exclusion also serves to make the listing
process under the Act more efficient,
and the listing process is designed to
limit undesirable environmental effects
in the future, the categorical exclusion
itself supports maintenance of the
environmental status quo.
(2) History of findings of no
significant impact. Every EA prepared
for an injurious species listing under the
Act since 1982 (the first rule
promulgated after environmentalassessment guidance was established
under NEPA) as part of a formal NEPA
analysis has resulted in a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) without
requiring mitigation measures, and,
therefore, did not necessitate the
preparation of an EIS.
The species listed for which an EA
was prepared include the raccoon dog
(Nyctereutes procyonoides, 1983), the
Chinese mitten crab (genus Eriocheir,
1989), the brown treesnake (Boiga
irregularis, 1990), the silver carp
(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, 2007),
the black carp (Mylopharyngodon
piceus, 2007), the largescale silver carp
(Mylopharyngodon piceus, 2007), and
four species of large constrictor snakes
(Burmese python (Python molurus),
Northern African python (Python
sebae), Southern African python
(Python natalensis), and yellow
anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), 2012).
The issues addressed in the EAs that
were prepared for these species include
the biology of the species (countries of
origin, native range, habitat
requirements, and food species),
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2013 / Notices
introduction and dispersal pathways
(how a species was transported),
ecological impacts (including effects on
native, threatened, and endangered
species), human impacts (including
effects on recreation and water quality),
economic impacts (including industry
and agriculture), and cumulative
impacts. While these species, when
present in a nonnative range, can have
a significant effect on the environment,
the regulatory action (listing) has no
significant effect. That each EA resulted
in a FONSI strongly suggests that
subsequent listings will also have no
significant environmental impacts.
(3) Consistent with existing approved
categorical exclusions. A categorical
exclusion for the injurious listing
process is consistent with the Service’s
existing approved categorical
exclusions. Categorical exclusions have
been approved that address preventing
the introduction of nonindigenous
species. For example, research,
inventory, and information activities
directly related to the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources are
categorically excluded as long as they
do not involve, among other things,
‘‘introduction of organisms not
indigenous to the affected ecosystem’’
(516 DM 8.5 B(1)).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Next Steps
The establishment of the categorical
exclusion is open to public comment.
Following review of the comments, the
Service will submit the final categorical
exclusion to CEQ, which will review it
and our responses to public comments
for conformity with NEPA and make a
recommendation regarding approval of
the categorical exclusion. If the
categorical exclusion is approved by the
Department, the Service will review
each subsequent listing rule for the DOIestablished extraordinary circumstances
that would necessitate the preparation
of an EA or an EIS. The Administrative
Procedure Act rulemaking procedures
and the review of extraordinary
circumstances both ensure that the
decision to apply the categorical
exclusion as part of the NEPA
environmental review is informed by
input from other Federal agencies, other
governmental and Tribal entities, and
the public.
Public Comments
Any comments to be considered on
this proposed addition to the list of
categorical exclusions in the
Departmental Manual must be received
by the date listed in DATES at the
location listed in ADDRESSES. Comments
received after that date will be
considered only to the extent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:38 Jun 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
practicable. Comments, including
names and addresses of respondents,
will be posted at https://www.fws.gov/
injuriouswildlife. Before including your
address, telephone number, email
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Proposed Text for the Departmental
Manual
The text we propose to add to 516 DM
(see ADDRESSES) is set forth below:
Part 516: National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969
Chapter 8: Managing the NEPA
Process—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*
*
*
*
*
Categorical Exclusions.
*
*
*
*
*
C. Permit and Regulatory Functions.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) The adding of species to the list of
injurious wildlife regulated under 50
CFR subchapter B, part 16, which
prohibits the importation into the
United States and interstate
transportation of wildlife found to be
injurious.
8.5
Dated: May 31, 2013.
Willie R. Taylor.
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–15707 Filed 6–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS—HQ—MB—2013—N144;
F09M29000—134—FXMB12320900000]
Proposed Information Collection;
Depredation Order for Blackbirds,
Grackles, Cowbirds, Magpies, and
Crows
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) will ask the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
approve the information collection (IC)
described below. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
as part of our continuing efforts to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39309
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, we invite the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on this IC. This
IC is scheduled to expire on November
30, 2013. We may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to
consider your comments on this IC, we
must receive them by August 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the
IC to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 2042—PDM, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail); or hope_grey@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0146’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this IC, contact Hope Grey at
hope_grey@fws.gov (email) or 703–358–
2482 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)
implements four treaties concerning
migratory birds that the United States
has signed with Canada, Mexico, Japan,
and Russia. Under the treaties, we must
preserve most species of birds in the
United States, and activities involving
migratory birds are prohibited except as
authorized by regulation.
This information collection is
associated with our regulations that
implement the MBTA. In the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), 50 CFR 21.43
is a depredation order for blackbirds,
cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies
that authorizes take of these birds
‘‘when found committing or about to
commit depredations upon ornamental
or shade trees, agricultural crops,
livestock, or wildlife, or when
concentrated in such numbers and
manner as to constitute a health hazard
or other nuisance.’’
All persons or entities acting under
this depredation order must provide an
annual report containing the following
information for each species:
• Number of birds taken.
• Months and years in which the
birds were taken.
• State(s) and county(ies) in which
the birds were taken.
• General purpose for which the birds
were taken (such as for protection of
agriculture, human health and safety,
property, or natural resources).
We collect this information so that we
will be able to determine how many
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39307-39309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15707]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
[FWS-HQ-FHC-2013-N044; FXFR13360900000-134-FF09F14000]
National Environmental Policy Act: Implementing Procedures;
Addition to Categorical Exclusions for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
AGENCY: Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a proposed categorical exclusion under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The proposed categorical exclusion pertains to adding
species to the injurious wildlife list under the Lacey Act. The
addition of this categorical exclusion to the Department of the
Interior's Departmental Manual will improve conservation activities by
making the NEPA process for listing injurious species more efficient.
DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before July 31, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: Send comments to Susan Jewell, by one of
the following methods:
U.S. mail or hand delivery: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22203; or
Email: prevent_invasives@fws.gov (emails must have
``Categorical Exclusion'' in the subject line).
Document availability: You may view the Departmental Manual at
https://elips.doi.gov/elips/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Jewell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-
2416. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call
the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq., NEPA), Federal agencies are required to consider the potential
environmental impact of agency actions prior to implementation.
Agencies are then generally required to prepare either an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However,
when a Federal agency identifies classes of actions that under normal
circumstances do not have a potentially significant environmental
impact, either individually or cumulatively, Council on
[[Page 39308]]
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations allow the agency to establish a
categorical exclusion and to bypass the completion of an EA or an EIS
when undertaking those actions (40 CFR 1507.3(b); 40 CFR 1508.4). When
appropriately established and applied, categorical exclusions serve a
beneficial purpose. They allow Federal agencies to expedite the
environmental review process for proposals that typically do not
require more resource-intensive EAs or EISs (CEQ 2010).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has identified that it
would be appropriate to provide for a categorical exclusion for the
Federal action of adding species to the list of injurious wildlife
under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended; the Act). The Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, as delegated to the Service,
to prescribe by regulation those wild mammals, wild birds, fish,
mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles, and the offspring or
eggs of any of the aforementioned, that are injurious to human beings,
or to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to
the wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. The provisions
of the Act regarding injurious species are intended to protect human
health and welfare and the human and natural environments of the United
States by identifying and reducing the threat posed by certain wildlife
species. Listing these species as injurious under the Act subsequently
prohibits the species from being imported into the United States or
transported across State lines.
The listing of species as injurious is, as an agency action,
subject to environmental review under NEPA procedures. The Service has
generally prepared EAs for listing rules. A categorical exclusion would
allow the Service to exercise its authority to protect human health and
welfare, certain human environments, and trust resources from harm
caused by injurious species more effectively and efficiently by
precluding the need to conduct redundant environmental analyses.
In 2002, the Service used an existing departmental categorical
exclusion (``Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that
are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or
conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be
subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case'' (43
CFR 46.210(i)) in two listing actions. Upon further review, the Service
believes that this is not the best description of why injurious species
listings do not have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, the Service is pursuing the addition of a new categorical
exclusion for the listing of injurious species under the Act.
Proposed Categorical Exclusion
The Department of the Interior is proposing to add a categorical
exclusion to the Department Manual at 516 DM 8.5 C, which covers
``Permit and Regulatory Functions.'' This section includes approved
categorical exclusions that address, among other things, the issuance
of regulations pertaining to wildlife. This proposed addition would
provide for a categorical exclusion for only the regulatory action of
listing species as injurious (that is, adding a species to the list).
The regulatory listing action places the species on a prohibited list,
which prohibits their importation into the United States and interstate
transportation. Thus, the activities covered under the categorical
exclusion are simply to keep species out of the country that are
injurious or to prevent their spread across State lines.
The categorical exclusion would not cover, for example, control
actions (such as constructing barriers) or eradication actions (such as
applying pesticides). Any such injurious species management measures
conducted by any Federal agency would undergo appropriate NEPA analysis
and documentation prior to implementation of the action. The
categorical exclusion would also not cover the issuance of permits
(available for individual specimens intended for zoological,
educational, medical, or scientific use), which is already covered
under an existing categorical exclusion (516 DM 8.5 C(1)). The
categorical exclusion would not cover the removal of species from the
injurious wildlife list under the Act.
Additionally, application of the proposed categorical exclusion
would be subject to a review of extraordinary circumstances established
in regulation by the Department of the Interior (see 50 CFR 46.215).
Extraordinary circumstances would be subject to the factors or
circumstances that would cause an otherwise categorically excludable
action to require further analysis in an EA or EIS. Thus,
notwithstanding the existence of this categorical exclusion, the
Service would have to develop an EA or EIS if it found the
extraordinary circumstances applied to the listing of a particular
injurious species.
Analysis
The intent of the proposed categorical exclusion is to more
effectively protect the human and natural environments of the United
States from injurious species by making the listing process under the
Act more efficient. The following three justifications support the
categorical exclusion:
(1) Maintaining the environmental status quo. The listing action
preserves the environmental status quo. That is, these listings ensure
that certain potential effects associated with introduction of species
that have been found to be injurious do not occur. In this way,
injurious wildlife listings maintain the state of the affected
environment into the future--the state of the environment prior to
listing or potential introduction in the absence of a listing. Thus,
prohibiting a nonindigenous injurious species from being introduced
into an area in which it does not naturally occur cannot have a
significant effect on the human environment.
Because the proposed categorical exclusion also serves to make the
listing process under the Act more efficient, and the listing process
is designed to limit undesirable environmental effects in the future,
the categorical exclusion itself supports maintenance of the
environmental status quo.
(2) History of findings of no significant impact. Every EA prepared
for an injurious species listing under the Act since 1982 (the first
rule promulgated after environmental-assessment guidance was
established under NEPA) as part of a formal NEPA analysis has resulted
in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) without requiring
mitigation measures, and, therefore, did not necessitate the
preparation of an EIS.
The species listed for which an EA was prepared include the raccoon
dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides, 1983), the Chinese mitten crab (genus
Eriocheir, 1989), the brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis, 1990), the
silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, 2007), the black carp
(Mylopharyngodon piceus, 2007), the largescale silver carp
(Mylopharyngodon piceus, 2007), and four species of large constrictor
snakes (Burmese python (Python molurus), Northern African python
(Python sebae), Southern African python (Python natalensis), and yellow
anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), 2012).
The issues addressed in the EAs that were prepared for these
species include the biology of the species (countries of origin, native
range, habitat requirements, and food species),
[[Page 39309]]
introduction and dispersal pathways (how a species was transported),
ecological impacts (including effects on native, threatened, and
endangered species), human impacts (including effects on recreation and
water quality), economic impacts (including industry and agriculture),
and cumulative impacts. While these species, when present in a
nonnative range, can have a significant effect on the environment, the
regulatory action (listing) has no significant effect. That each EA
resulted in a FONSI strongly suggests that subsequent listings will
also have no significant environmental impacts.
(3) Consistent with existing approved categorical exclusions. A
categorical exclusion for the injurious listing process is consistent
with the Service's existing approved categorical exclusions.
Categorical exclusions have been approved that address preventing the
introduction of nonindigenous species. For example, research,
inventory, and information activities directly related to the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources are categorically excluded
as long as they do not involve, among other things, ``introduction of
organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem'' (516 DM 8.5 B(1)).
Next Steps
The establishment of the categorical exclusion is open to public
comment. Following review of the comments, the Service will submit the
final categorical exclusion to CEQ, which will review it and our
responses to public comments for conformity with NEPA and make a
recommendation regarding approval of the categorical exclusion. If the
categorical exclusion is approved by the Department, the Service will
review each subsequent listing rule for the DOI-established
extraordinary circumstances that would necessitate the preparation of
an EA or an EIS. The Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking procedures
and the review of extraordinary circumstances both ensure that the
decision to apply the categorical exclusion as part of the NEPA
environmental review is informed by input from other Federal agencies,
other governmental and Tribal entities, and the public.
Public Comments
Any comments to be considered on this proposed addition to the list
of categorical exclusions in the Departmental Manual must be received
by the date listed in DATES at the location listed in ADDRESSES.
Comments received after that date will be considered only to the extent
practicable. Comments, including names and addresses of respondents,
will be posted at https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment, including your personal identifying
information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Proposed Text for the Departmental Manual
The text we propose to add to 516 DM (see ADDRESSES) is set forth
below:
Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Chapter 8: Managing the NEPA Process--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* * * * *
8.5 Categorical Exclusions.
* * * * *
C. Permit and Regulatory Functions.
* * * * *
(9) The adding of species to the list of injurious wildlife
regulated under 50 CFR subchapter B, part 16, which prohibits the
importation into the United States and interstate transportation of
wildlife found to be injurious.
Dated: May 31, 2013.
Willie R. Taylor.
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-15707 Filed 6-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P