Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Cape Sable Thoroughwort, Florida Semaphore Cactus, and Aboriginal Prickly-Apple, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape Sable Thoroughwort, 40669-40673 [2013-16239]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
plan terminations or sudden market
declines?
(d) If the CAS Board continues to
require a ‘‘true-up’’ of assets and
liabilities or permits an Assignable Cost
Limitation Buffer, should the CAS
Board remove the CAS 412–50(c)(2)(i)
$0 floor and permit negative pension
costs instead?
Joseph G. Jordan,
Chair, Cost Accounting Standards Board.
[FR Doc. 2013–16113 Filed 7–5–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076 and
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0029; 4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY08; 1018–AZ51
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Cape Sable Thoroughwort,
Florida Semaphore Cactus, and
Aboriginal Prickly-Apple, and
Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape
Sable Thoroughwort
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period; availability of draft
economic analysis.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the October 11, 2012, proposed rule
to list Chromolaena frustrata (Cape
Sable thoroughwort), Consolea
corallicola (Florida semaphore cactus),
and Harrisia aboriginum (aboriginal
prickly-apple) as endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), and to
designate critical habitat for
Chromolaena frustrata under the Act.
We also announce the availability of a
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for Chromolaena frustrata 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, the associated DEA, and
the amended required determinations
section. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted, as
they will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 05, 2013
Jkt 229001
August 7, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. Any comments that we receive
after the closing date may not be
considered in the final decisions on
these actions.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the October 11,
2012, proposed rule on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076 or by mail
from the South Florida Ecological
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
a copy of the draft economic analysis at
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0029.
Written Comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
on the listing proposal to Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076, and submit
comments on the critical habitat
proposal and the associated draft
economic analysis to Docket No. FWS–
R4–ES–2013–0029. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for an explanation of the
two dockets.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comment on
the listing proposal by U.S. mail or
hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0076; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
Submit comment on the critical habitat
proposal and draft economic analysis by
U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–
ES–2013–0029; 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:
Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida
Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by
telephone 772–562–3909; or by
facsimile 772–562–4288. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40669
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We are reopening the comment period
for our proposed listing determination
for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum
and our proposed critical habitat
designation for Chromolaena frustrata
that was published in the Federal
Register on October 11, 2012 (77 FR
61836). We are also specifically seeking
comments on the draft economic
analysis, which is now available, for the
critical habitat designation. We will
consider information and
recommendations from all interested
parties. See ADDRESSES for information
on where to send your comments.
We are also notifying the public that
we will publish two separate rules, one
for the final listing determination for
Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea
corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum
and another for the final critical habitat
determination for Chromolaena
frustrata. The final listing rule will
publish under the existing docket
number, FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076, and
the final critical habitat designation will
publish under docket number FWS–R4–
ES–2013–0029.
We request that you provide
comments that are specifically on our
listing determination under the existing
docket number FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0076. We are particularly interested in
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species
and regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of
these species, including the locations of
any additional populations of these
species.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of these
species and ongoing conservation
measures for these species and their
habitats.
(4) Current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species and
possible impacts of these activities on
these species.
We request that you provide
comments that are specifically on the
critical habitat determination and draft
economic analysis under docket number
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0029. 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 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40670
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
Chromolaena frustrata 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; and
(c) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
occupied by Chromolaena frustrata or
proposed to be designated as critical
habitat, and possible impacts of these
activities on these species and proposed
critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on Chromolaena frustrata and
proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable 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.
(10) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(11) Information on the extent to
which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is complete and
accurate.
(12) 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.
(13) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rule (77 FR
61836) during the initial comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 05, 2013
Jkt 229001
period from October 11, 2012, to
December 10, 2012, please do not
resubmit them. We will incorporate
them into the public record as part of
this comment period, and we will fully
consider them in the preparation of our
final determinations. Our final
determinations will take into
consideration all written comments and
any additional information we receive
during both comment periods.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rule
or DEA by one of the methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section. We request that
you send comments only by the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit a comment via 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–R4–ES–2012–0076 (for the
proposed listings), and at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0029 (for the
proposed critical habitat and draft
economic analysis) or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South
Florida Ecological Services Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You
may obtain copies of the proposed rule
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076 and the draft
economic analysis at Docket No. FWS–
R4–ES–2013–0029, or by mail from the
South Florida Ecological Services Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat for
Chromolaena frustrata in this
document. For more information on
previous Federal actions concerning C.
frustrata, the species, or its habitat, refer
to the proposed listing rule and
proposed designation of critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), which
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is available online at https://
www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0076) or from the
South Florida Ecological Services Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
On October 11, 2012, we published a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for Chromolaena frustrata (77
FR 61836). We proposed to designate
approximately 3,466 hectares (8,565
acres) in nine units located in MiamiDade and Monroe Counties, Florida, as
critical habitat. That proposal had a 60day comment period, ending December
10, 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 or revise critical habitat
based upon the best scientific data
available, after taking into consideration
the economic impact, impact on
national security, or any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area as critical habitat,
provided such exclusion will not result
in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that area
would receive from the protection from
adverse modification 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 any benefits that may
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Chromolaena frustrata,
the benefits of critical habitat include
public awareness of the presence of C.
frustrata and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus
exists, increased habitat protection for
C. frustrata 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 and commercial 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, we have
prepared a DEA concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation,
which 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
Chromolaena frustrata. 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
Chromolaena frustrata (e.g., under the
Federal listing, if adopted, and under
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 05, 2013
Jkt 229001
designation of critical habitat (i.e.,
incremental impacts). For a further
description of the methodology of the
analysis, see Chapter 2,
‘‘METHODOLOGY,’’ of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of
the foreseeable potential economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation for Chromolaena frustrata
over the next 20 years, which was
determined to be the appropriate period
for analysis because limited planning
information is available for most
activities to forecast activity levels for
projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It
identifies potential incremental costs as
a result of the proposed critical habitat
designation; these are those costs
attributed to critical habitat over and
above those baseline costs attributable
to listing.
The DEA provides estimated costs of
the probable economic impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation of
Chromolaena frustrata associated with
the following categories of activity:
Commercial, residential and
recreational development; Federal land
management; and restoration and
conservation.
The DEA estimates that
approximately $578,000 in direct
incremental costs would result from the
critical habitat designation over the next
20 years (at a 7 percent discount rate).
The DEA estimates 93 percent of the
costs would be attributable to
consultations regarding Federal land
management and restoration and
conservation activities, with the
remaining 7 percent attributable to
development in the area. Over half of
the estimated incremental costs are
expected to result from actions
occurring with the Key Largo unit, in
Monroe County, Florida.
Overall, 92 percent of the area
proposed as critical habitat is located
within Federal, State, or local
conservation areas. The DEA estimates
that the administrative cost of
consultations for Federal land
management to be $61,474 for formal
consultations and $1,138 for informal
consultations. It estimates that the
incremental costs of the proposed
critical habitat designation on Federal
land management would be
approximately $299,000 over the next
20 years (7 percent discount rate). Over
half of these costs are expected to occur
within the Everglades National Park
unit.
The DEA estimates the administrative
cost of consultations for commercial,
residential, and recreational
development to be $5,387 per formal
consultation and $2,412 per informal
consultation. It is estimated that the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40671
incremental costs of the proposed
critical habitat designation on
commercial, residential, and
recreational development would be
approximately $39,000 over the next 20
years (7 percent discount rate). The DEA
provides an estimate that consultations
in the Key Largo unit would account for
77 percent of these costs.
The DEA estimates the administrative
cost of consultations for restoration and
conservation to be $22,437 for formal
consultations and $7,492 for informal
consultations. It is estimated that the
incremental costs of the proposed
critical habitat designation on
restoration and conservation projects to
be approximately $240,000 over the
next 20 years (7 percent discount rate).
The majority, 91 percent, of these costs
are estimated to occur within the Key
Largo unit. Given the presence of other
listed species that may trigger
consultation requirements related to
restoration and conservation projects,
these costs for C. frustrata are likely
overestimates of the incremental cost of
the proposed critical habitat designation
on restoration and conservation
projects.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the DEA, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended
required determinations. We may revise
the proposed rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the
public comment period. In particular,
we may exclude an area from critical
habitat if we determine that the benefits
of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area, provided
the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Required Determinations—Amended
In our October 11, 2012, proposed
rule (77 FR 61836), 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.s) 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, or 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
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
40672
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 determination
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.),
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 rulemaking.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 05, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
Chromolaena frustrata would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of
economic activities, such as
commercial, residential, and
recreational development; Federal land
management; and restoration and
conservation. In order to determine
whether it is appropriate for our agency
to certify that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the
numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether
their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat
designation will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement;
designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal
agencies. In areas where a listed species
is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
fund, permit, or implement that may
affect the 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 Chromolaena frustrata. Based upon
the results of the DEA, we do not
anticipate significant adverse impacts to
small entities as a result of the proposed
critical habitat designation. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated, such as small
businesses. However, Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies
to assess the 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 E.O.
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. Information for this analysis
was gathered from the Small Business
Administration, stakeholders, and the
Service. 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 South Florida
Ecological Services Office, Region 4,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Dated: June 20, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–16239 Filed 7–5–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ43
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
˜
Habitat for the Acuna Cactus and the
Fickeisen Plains Cactus
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the October 3, 2012, proposed listing
and designation of critical habitat for
Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
˜
acunensis (acuna cactus) and
Pediocactus peeblesianus var.
fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus)
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We are
reopening the comment period to allow
all interested parties an opportunity to
comment on revisions to the proposed
critical habitat designations, which are
described in this document; the
associated draft economic analysis
(DEA) for the proposed critical habitat
designations; and the amended required
determinations. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted, as
they will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before July
23, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the October 3,
2012, proposed rule on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061 or by mail
from the Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Jul 05, 2013
Jkt 229001
Written comments: 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–R2–ES–2013–0025, 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–R2–ES–2013–
0025; 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:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 2321
W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602)
242–0210; facsimile (602) 242–2513.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We are reopening the comment period
for our proposed critical habitat
˜
designations for the acuna cactus and
the Fickeisen plains cactus that
published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60509). We are
specifically seeking comments on the
revised proposed critical habitat
designations described in this
document; see ADDRESSES for
information on how to submit your
comments. We will consider
information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We also seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from
human activity, the degree of which can
be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase
in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
˜
(a) The distribution of the acuna
cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus;
(b) The amount and distribution of
˜
acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains
cactus habitat;
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40673
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including management for
the potential effects of climate change;
and
(d) 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.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) Information on the extent to which
the description of economic impacts in
the DEA is complete and accurate.
(7) 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.
(8) Information that may inform our
consideration of exclusion, including
benefits of exclusion and benefits of
including the areas proposed as critical
habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus
on the Navajo Nation based on the
‘‘Navajo Nation Fickeisen Plains Cactus
Management Plan’’ and on the Babbitt
Ranches based on their ‘‘Draft Babbitt
Ranches Fickeisen Plains Cactus
Management Plan.’’ Both plans were
submitted during the March 28 through
April 29, 2013, comment period (78 FR
18938) and are available on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rule (77 FR
60509) during the initial comment
period from October 3 to December 3,
2012, or during the second comment
period (78 FR 18938) from March 28 to
April 29, 2013, please do not resubmit
them. We will incorporate them into the
public record as part of this comment
period, and we will fully consider them
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40669-40673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16239]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076 and FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY08; 1018-AZ51
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Cape Sable Thoroughwort, Florida Semaphore Cactus, and
Aboriginal Prickly-Apple, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape
Sable Thoroughwort
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; availability of
draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the October 11, 2012,
proposed rule to list Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable thoroughwort),
Consolea corallicola (Florida semaphore cactus), and Harrisia
aboriginum (aboriginal prickly-apple) as endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate
critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata under the Act. We also
announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata 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, the
associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section.
Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be
fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before
August 7, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we
receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final
decisions on these actions.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the October
11, 2012, proposed rule on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076 or by mail from the South Florida
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You
may obtain a copy of the draft economic analysis at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2013-0029.
Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the listing proposal to Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076, and submit comments on the critical habitat
proposal and the associated draft economic analysis to Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2013-0029. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of
the two dockets.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comment on the listing proposal by U.S.
mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-
2012-0076; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA
22203. Submit comment on the critical habitat proposal and draft
economic analysis by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029; 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: Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office,
1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772-562-3909; or
by facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We are reopening the comment period for our proposed listing
determination for Chromolaena frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and
Harrisia aboriginum and our proposed critical habitat designation for
Chromolaena frustrata that was published in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836). We are also specifically seeking
comments on the draft economic analysis, which is now available, for
the critical habitat designation. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested parties. See ADDRESSES for
information on where to send your comments.
We are also notifying the public that we will publish two separate
rules, one for the final listing determination for Chromolaena
frustrata, Consolea corallicola, and Harrisia aboriginum and another
for the final critical habitat determination for Chromolaena frustrata.
The final listing rule will publish under the existing docket number,
FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076, and the final critical habitat designation will
publish under docket number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029.
We request that you provide comments that are specifically on our
listing determination under the existing docket number FWS-R4-ES-2012-
0076. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species and ongoing conservation measures for these species and
their habitats.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
We request that you provide comments that are specifically on the
critical habitat determination and draft economic analysis under docket
number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029. 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether
[[Page 40670]]
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 Chromolaena frustrata 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; and
(c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas occupied by Chromolaena frustrata or proposed to be
designated as critical habitat, and possible impacts of these
activities on these species and proposed critical habitat.
(8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Chromolaena frustrata and proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable 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.
(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(12) 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.
(13) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77
FR 61836) during the initial comment period from October 11, 2012, to
December 10, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate
them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations. Our
final determinations will take into consideration all written comments
and any additional information we receive during both comment periods.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via 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-R4-ES-2012-0076 (for the proposed listings), and at Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029 (for the proposed critical habitat and draft
economic analysis) or by appointment, during normal business hours, at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of
the proposed rule on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2012-0076 and the draft economic analysis at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0029, or by mail from the South Florida
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata in this
document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning
C. frustrata, the species, or its habitat, refer to the proposed
listing rule and proposed designation of critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61836), which is
available online at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-
R4-ES-2012-0076) or from the South Florida Ecological Services Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
On October 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for Chromolaena frustrata (77 FR 61836). We proposed
to designate approximately 3,466 hectares (8,565 acres) in nine units
located in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, as critical
habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 10,
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 or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification 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 any benefits that may
[[Page 40671]]
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
Chromolaena frustrata, the benefits of critical habitat include public
awareness of the presence of C. frustrata and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat
protection for C. frustrata 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 and commercial 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, we have prepared a DEA concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation, which 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 Chromolaena frustrata. 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 Chromolaena frustrata
(e.g., under the Federal listing, if adopted, and under 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,
``METHODOLOGY,'' of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for
Chromolaena frustrata over the next 20 years, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information is available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential
incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat
designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over
and above those baseline costs attributable to listing.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the probable economic impacts
of the proposed critical habitat designation of Chromolaena frustrata
associated with the following categories of activity: Commercial,
residential and recreational development; Federal land management; and
restoration and conservation.
The DEA estimates that approximately $578,000 in direct incremental
costs would result from the critical habitat designation over the next
20 years (at a 7 percent discount rate). The DEA estimates 93 percent
of the costs would be attributable to consultations regarding Federal
land management and restoration and conservation activities, with the
remaining 7 percent attributable to development in the area. Over half
of the estimated incremental costs are expected to result from actions
occurring with the Key Largo unit, in Monroe County, Florida.
Overall, 92 percent of the area proposed as critical habitat is
located within Federal, State, or local conservation areas. The DEA
estimates that the administrative cost of consultations for Federal
land management to be $61,474 for formal consultations and $1,138 for
informal consultations. It estimates that the incremental costs of the
proposed critical habitat designation on Federal land management would
be approximately $299,000 over the next 20 years (7 percent discount
rate). Over half of these costs are expected to occur within the
Everglades National Park unit.
The DEA estimates the administrative cost of consultations for
commercial, residential, and recreational development to be $5,387 per
formal consultation and $2,412 per informal consultation. It is
estimated that the incremental costs of the proposed critical habitat
designation on commercial, residential, and recreational development
would be approximately $39,000 over the next 20 years (7 percent
discount rate). The DEA provides an estimate that consultations in the
Key Largo unit would account for 77 percent of these costs.
The DEA estimates the administrative cost of consultations for
restoration and conservation to be $22,437 for formal consultations and
$7,492 for informal consultations. It is estimated that the incremental
costs of the proposed critical habitat designation on restoration and
conservation projects to be approximately $240,000 over the next 20
years (7 percent discount rate). The majority, 91 percent, of these
costs are estimated to occur within the Key Largo unit. Given the
presence of other listed species that may trigger consultation
requirements related to restoration and conservation projects, these
costs for C. frustrata are likely overestimates of the incremental cost
of the proposed critical habitat designation on restoration and
conservation projects.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or
supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive
during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area
from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our October 11, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 61836), 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.s) 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, or
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
[[Page 40672]]
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 determination 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.), 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 rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under 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
Chromolaena frustrata would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities, such as commercial,
residential, and recreational development; Federal land management; and
restoration and conservation. In order to determine whether it is
appropriate for our agency to certify that the proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where a listed species is present, Federal
agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
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 Chromolaena
frustrata. Based upon the results of the DEA, we do not anticipate
significant adverse impacts to small entities as a result of the
proposed critical habitat designation. 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 potential impacts to entities not directly
regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the 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 E.O. 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. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. 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
South Florida Ecological Services Office, Region 4, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
[[Page 40673]]
Dated: June 20, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-16239 Filed 7-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
