Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances, 26769-26772 [2016-10483]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0073 to Ninth Coast
Guard District to read as follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 165.T09–0073 Safety Zone; Tall Ships
Challenge Great Lakes 2016; Fairport
Harbor, OH, Bay City, MI, Chicago, IL, Green
Bay, WI, Sturgeon Bay, WI, Duluth, MN, Erie,
PA.
(a) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
(1) Navigation rules means the
Navigation Rules, International and
Inland (See, 1972 COLREGS and 33
U.S.C. 2001 et seq.).
(2) Official patrol means those
persons designated by Captain of the
Port Buffalo, Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie,
Duluth and Lake Michigan to monitor a
tall ship safety zone, permit entry into
the zone, give legally enforceable orders
to persons or vessels within the zone,
and take other actions authorized by the
cognizant Captain of the Port.
(3) Public vessel means vessels
owned, chartered, or operated by the
United States or by a State or political
subdivision thereof.
(4) Tall ship means any sailing vessel
participating in the Tall Ships Challenge
2016 in the Great Lakes.
(b) Location. The following areas are
safety zones: All navigable waters of the
United States located in the Ninth Coast
Guard District within a 100 yard radius
of any tall ship.
(c) Regulations. (1) No person or
vessel is allowed within the safety zone
unless authorized by the cognizant
Captain of the Port, their designated
representative, or the on-scene official
patrol.
(2) Persons or vessels operating
within a confined harbor or channel,
where there is not sufficient navigable
water outside of the safety zone to safely
maneuver are allowed to operate within
the safety zone and shall travel at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course. Vessels operating within the
safety zone shall not come within 25
yards of a tall ship unless authorized by
the cognizant Captain of the Port, their
designated representative, or the onscene official patrol.
(3) When a tall ship approaches any
vessel that is moored or anchored, the
stationary vessel must stay moored or
anchored while it remains within the
tall ship’s safety zone unless ordered by
or given permission from the cognizant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
Captain of the Port, their designated
representative, or the on-scene official
patrol to do otherwise.
(d) Effective period. This rule is
effective from 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday,
July 6, 2016 through 12:01 a.m. on
Monday September 12, 2016.
(e) Navigation Rules. The Navigation
Rules shall apply at all times within a
tall ships safety zone.
Dated: April 8, 2016.
J.E. Ryan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–10453 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0171;
FF09E40000 167 FXES11150900000]
RIN 1018–BB25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revisions to the
Regulations for Candidate
Conservation Agreements With
Assurances
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), propose
changes to the regulations concerning
enhancement of survival permits issued
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA), associated
with Candidate Conservation
Agreements with Assurances. We
propose to add the term ‘‘net
conservation benefit’’ to the Candidate
Conservation Agreements with
Assurances regulations, and to eliminate
references to ‘‘other necessary
properties’’ to clarify the level of
conservation effort we require each
agreement to include in order for us to
approve a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances. We are
also proposing these changes to the
Candidate Conservation Agreement with
Assurances policy in a separate
document published in today’s Federal
Register.
DATES: We will accept comments that
we receive on or before July 5, 2016.
Comments submitted electronically
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26769
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the docket number for this
proposed rule, which is FWS–HQ–ES–
2015–0171. Then click on the Search
button. In the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please ensure that
you have found the correct document
before submitting your comment.
• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–HQ–
ES–2015–0171, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
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 Request for Information section,
below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Serfis, Chief, Branch of Conservation
and Communications, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: ES,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041–3803; telephone 703–358–2171.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background
Through its Candidate Conservation
program, one of the FWS’s goals is to
encourage the public to take specific
conservation actions for declining
species prior to them being listed under
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
cumulative outcome of such
conservation actions may result in not
needing to list a species; or may result
in listing a species as threatened instead
of endangered, and provide the basis for
the species’ recovery and eventual
removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
The Service put in place a voluntary
conservation program for non-Federal
property owners to help accomplish this
goal: Candidate Conservation
Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs).
On June 17, 1999, the policy for this
type of agreement (64 FR 32726) and
implementing regulations in part 17 of
title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) (64 FR 32706) were
made final. On May 3, 2004, we
published a final rule (69 FR 24084) to
revise the CCAA regulations to make
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
26770
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
them easier to understand and
implement by, among other things,
defining ‘‘property owner’’ and by
clarifying several points, including the
transfer of permits, permit revocation,
and advanced notification of take.
To participate in a CCAA, nonFederal property owners agree to
implement specific conservation actions
on their land that reduce or eliminate
threats to the species that are covered
under the agreement. An ESA section
10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival
permit is issued to the agreement
participant providing a specific level of
incidental take coverage should the
property owner’s agreed-upon
conservation actions and routine
property management actions (e.g.,
agricultural, ranching, or forestry
activities) result in take of the covered
species if listed. Property owners
receive assurances that they will not be
required to undertake any conservation
actions other than those agreed to if new
information indicates that additional or
revised conservation measures are
needed for the species, and they will not
be subject to additional resource use or
land use restrictions.
Based on our experience reviewing
and approving CCAAs over the past 16
years, we are proposing changes to the
regulations that will clarify the level of
conservation effort each agreement
needs to include in order for FWS to
approve an agreement and issue a
permit.
Purpose of Proposed Changes to
Current Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22
and 17.32
We are proposing changes to the
CCAA regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(d)
and 17.32(d) consistent with the
proposed revisions to the CCAA policy
published separately in today’s Federal
Register. The regulation changes are to
(1) include the term ‘‘net conservation
benefit’’ to clarify the level of
conservation effort that is necessary in
order to issue a permit associated with
a CCAA and (2) eliminate references to
‘‘other necessary properties.’’
Under the current policy and
regulations, to approve a CCAA we must
‘‘determine that the benefits of the
conservation measures implemented by
a property owner under a CCAA, when
combined with those benefits that
would be achieved if it is assumed that
conservation measures were also to be
implemented on other necessary
properties, would preclude or remove
any need to list the covered species.’’
The confusion created by the
hypothetical concept of conservation
measures needing to be implemented on
‘‘other necessary properties’’ is why we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
are clarifying and revising the CCAA
standard to require a net conservation
benefit to the covered species
specifically on the property to be
enrolled and eliminating references to
‘‘other necessary properties.’’
In concert with the proposed
revisions to our CCAAs policy,
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
Register, these changes to the
regulations would help reassure
landowners participating in CCAAs that
additional conservation measures above
and beyond those contained in the
CCAA would not be required, and that
additional land, water, or resource use
restrictions would not be imposed upon
them should a species that resides on
their property become listed in the
future.
Request for Information
Any final rule based on this proposal
will consider information and
recommendations submitted in a timely
manner from all interested parties. We
solicit comments, information, and
recommendations from governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the
scientific community, industry groups,
environmental interest groups, and any
other interested parties on this proposed
rule. All comments and materials we
receive by the date listed in DATES,
above, will be considered prior to the
approval of a final rule.
You may submit your information
concerning this proposed rule by one of
the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you
submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal
identifying information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee
that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we receive in
response to this proposed rule will be
available for you to review at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Management and Budget’s
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs will review all significant rules.
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements. This proposed rule
is consistent with Executive Order
13563, and in particular with the
requirement of retrospective analysis of
existing rules, designed ‘‘to make the
agency’s regulatory program more
effective or less burdensome in
achieving the regulatory objectives.’’
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
whenever a Federal agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare, and make available for public
comment, a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency, or his or her designee, certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act
to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for
certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We
certify that, if adopted as proposed, this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would revise the
regulations governing issuance of an
enhancement of survival permit in
conjunction with a CCAA to clarify but
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
not change current practice and does
not place any new requirements on any
non-Federal property owner that may
seek to apply for approval of a CCAA.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
This proposed rule does not contain
any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This
proposed rule will not impose new
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State, local, or tribal governments;
individuals; businesses; or
organizations. OMB has reviewed and
approved the application form that
property owners use to apply for
approval of a CCAA and associated
enhancement of survival permit (Form
3–200–54) and assigned OMB Control
Number 1018–0094, which expires
January 31, 2017. 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.): (a) On the basis of information
contained in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act section above, this proposed rule
would not ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’
affect small governments. We have
determined and certify pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2
U.S.C. 1502, that this rule would not
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. A Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required. As explained above, small
governments would not be affected
because the proposed rule would not
place additional requirements on any
city, county, or other local
municipalities.
(b) This proposed rule would not
produce a Federal mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector of $100 million or greater
in any year; that is, this proposed rule
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. This proposed rule would impose
no obligations on State, local, or tribal
governments.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, this proposed rule would not
have significant takings implications.
This proposed rule would not pertain to
‘‘taking’’ of private property interests,
nor would it directly affect private
property. A takings implication
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
assessment is not required because this
proposed rule (1) would not effectively
compel a property owner to suffer a
physical invasion of property and (2)
would not deny all economically
beneficial or productive use of the land
or aquatic resources. This proposed rule
would substantially advance a
legitimate government interest
(conservation and recovery of
endangered and threatened species) and
would not present a barrier to all
reasonable and expected beneficial use
of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, we have considered whether this
proposed rule would have significant
Federalism effects and have determined
that a federalism summary impact
statement is not required. This proposed
rule pertains only to approving
enhancement of survival permits in
conjunction with a CCAA under the
ESA, and would not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed rule does not unduly
burden the judicial system and meets
the applicable standards provided in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988. This proposed rule would
clarify the issuance criteria for an
enhancement of survival permit
associated with a CCAA under the ESA.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and the Department of the
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. We
have considered possible effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and
have preliminarily determined that
there are no potential adverse effects of
issuing this proposed rule. Our intent is
to provide clarity in regard to the net
conservation benefit requirements for a
CCAA to be approved, including any
agreements in which Tribes may choose
to participate. We will continue to keep
our tribal obligations in mind as we
finalize this proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26771
National Environmental Policy Act
We analyzed the proposed regulations
in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), the Council
on Environmental Quality’s Regulations
for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500–
1508), and the Department of the
Interior’s NEPA procedures (516 DM 2
and 8; 43 CFR part 46) and determined
that the proposed regulations are
categorically excluded from NEPA
documentation requirements consistent
with 40 CFR 1508.4 and 43 CFR
46.210(i). This categorical exclusion
applies to policies, directives,
regulations, and guidelines that are ‘‘of
an administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature.’’ This
action does not trigger an extraordinary
circumstance, as outlined in 43 CFR
46.215, applicable to the categorical
exclusion. Therefore, the proposed
regulations do not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O.
13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. This proposed rule, if made
final, is not expected to affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule or
policy we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the proposed rule,
your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the sections or paragraphs that are
unclearly written, which sections or
sentences are too long, the sections
where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
26772
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter A of chapter IV, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 17.22 by revising
paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:
■
§ 17.22 Permits for scientific purposes,
enhancement of propagation or survival, or
for incidental taking.
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(8) Duration of the Candidate
Conservation Agreement. The duration
of a Candidate Conservation Agreement
covered by a permit issued under this
paragraph (d) must be sufficient to
achieve a net conservation benefit,
which is defined as the cumulative
benefits of specific conservation
measures designed to improve the status
of a covered species by removing or
minimizing threats, stabilizing
populations, and increasing its numbers
and improving its habitat.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
(i) The benefit would be measured by
the projected increase in the species’
population or improvement of the
species’ habitat, taking into account the
duration of the Agreement and any offsetting adverse effects attributable to the
incidental taking allowed by the
enhancement of survival permit.
(ii) The conservation measures and
management activities covered by the
agreement must be designed to reduce
or eliminate those current and future
threats on the property that are under
the property owner’s control, in order to
increase the species populations or
improve its habitat.
(iii) In the case where the species and
habitat is already adequately managed
to the benefit of the species, a net
conservation benefit will be achieved
when the property owner commits to
manage the species for a specified
period of time with the anticipation that
the population will increase or habitat
quality will improve.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 17.32 by revising
paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:
§ 17.32
Permits—general.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(8) Duration of the Candidate
Conservation Agreement. The duration
of a Candidate Conservation Agreement
covered by a permit issued under this
paragraph (d) must be sufficient to
achieve a net conservation benefit,
which is defined as the cumulative
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
benefits of specific conservation
measures designed to improve the status
of a covered species by removing or
minimizing threats, stabilizing
populations, and increasing its numbers
and improving its habitat.
(i) The benefit would be measured by
the projected increase in the species’
population or improvement of the
species’ habitat, taking into account the
duration of the Agreement and any offsetting adverse effects attributable to the
incidental taking allowed by the
enhancement of survival permit.
(ii) The conservation measures and
management activities covered by the
agreement must be designed to reduce
or eliminate those current and future
threats on the property that are under
the property owner’s control, in order to
increase the species populations or
improve its habitat.
(iii) In the case where the species and
habitat is already adequately managed
to the benefit of the species, a net
conservation benefit will be achieved
when the property owner commits to
manage the species for a specified
period of time with the anticipation that
the population will increase or habitat
quality will improve.
Dated: April 13, 2016.
Noah Matson,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–10483 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26769-26772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10483]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171; FF09E40000 167 FXES11150900000]
RIN 1018-BB25
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the
Regulations for Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), propose changes
to the regulations concerning enhancement of survival permits issued
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), associated
with Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances. We propose to
add the term ``net conservation benefit'' to the Candidate Conservation
Agreements with Assurances regulations, and to eliminate references to
``other necessary properties'' to clarify the level of conservation
effort we require each agreement to include in order for us to approve
a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances. We are also
proposing these changes to the Candidate Conservation Agreement with
Assurances policy in a separate document published in today's Federal
Register.
DATES: We will accept comments that we receive on or before July 5,
2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number
for this proposed rule, which is FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171. Then click on the
Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to
locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment
Now!'' Please ensure that you have found the correct document before
submitting your comment.
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0171, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803.
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 Request for Information section, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Serfis, Chief, Branch of
Conservation and Communications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Headquarters, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803;
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Through its Candidate Conservation program, one of the FWS's goals
is to encourage the public to take specific conservation actions for
declining species prior to them being listed under the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The cumulative outcome of such conservation actions may
result in not needing to list a species; or may result in listing a
species as threatened instead of endangered, and provide the basis for
the species' recovery and eventual removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service put in place a
voluntary conservation program for non-Federal property owners to help
accomplish this goal: Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
(CCAAs). On June 17, 1999, the policy for this type of agreement (64 FR
32726) and implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) (64 FR 32706) were made final. On May 3,
2004, we published a final rule (69 FR 24084) to revise the CCAA
regulations to make
[[Page 26770]]
them easier to understand and implement by, among other things,
defining ``property owner'' and by clarifying several points, including
the transfer of permits, permit revocation, and advanced notification
of take.
To participate in a CCAA, non-Federal property owners agree to
implement specific conservation actions on their land that reduce or
eliminate threats to the species that are covered under the agreement.
An ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival permit is issued to
the agreement participant providing a specific level of incidental take
coverage should the property owner's agreed-upon conservation actions
and routine property management actions (e.g., agricultural, ranching,
or forestry activities) result in take of the covered species if
listed. Property owners receive assurances that they will not be
required to undertake any conservation actions other than those agreed
to if new information indicates that additional or revised conservation
measures are needed for the species, and they will not be subject to
additional resource use or land use restrictions.
Based on our experience reviewing and approving CCAAs over the past
16 years, we are proposing changes to the regulations that will clarify
the level of conservation effort each agreement needs to include in
order for FWS to approve an agreement and issue a permit.
Purpose of Proposed Changes to Current Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and
17.32
We are proposing changes to the CCAA regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(d)
and 17.32(d) consistent with the proposed revisions to the CCAA policy
published separately in today's Federal Register. The regulation
changes are to (1) include the term ``net conservation benefit'' to
clarify the level of conservation effort that is necessary in order to
issue a permit associated with a CCAA and (2) eliminate references to
``other necessary properties.''
Under the current policy and regulations, to approve a CCAA we must
``determine that the benefits of the conservation measures implemented
by a property owner under a CCAA, when combined with those benefits
that would be achieved if it is assumed that conservation measures were
also to be implemented on other necessary properties, would preclude or
remove any need to list the covered species.'' The confusion created by
the hypothetical concept of conservation measures needing to be
implemented on ``other necessary properties'' is why we are clarifying
and revising the CCAA standard to require a net conservation benefit to
the covered species specifically on the property to be enrolled and
eliminating references to ``other necessary properties.''
In concert with the proposed revisions to our CCAAs policy,
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, these changes to the
regulations would help reassure landowners participating in CCAAs that
additional conservation measures above and beyond those contained in
the CCAA would not be required, and that additional land, water, or
resource use restrictions would not be imposed upon them should a
species that resides on their property become listed in the future.
Request for Information
Any final rule based on this proposal will consider information and
recommendations submitted in a timely manner from all interested
parties. We solicit comments, information, and recommendations from
governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific
community, industry groups, environmental interest groups, and any
other interested parties on this proposed rule. All comments and
materials we receive by the date listed in DATES, above, will be
considered prior to the approval of a final rule.
You may submit your information concerning this proposed rule by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any
personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If
your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal identifying information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we receive in
response to this proposed rule will be available for you to review at
https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Management and
Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all
significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements. This proposed rule is consistent with
Executive Order 13563, and in particular with the requirement of
retrospective analysis of existing rules, designed ``to make the
agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in
achieving the regulatory objectives.''
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency, or his or her designee, certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We certify that, if adopted as
proposed, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would revise the regulations governing issuance
of an enhancement of survival permit in conjunction with a CCAA to
clarify but
[[Page 26771]]
not change current practice and does not place any new requirements on
any non-Federal property owner that may seek to apply for approval of a
CCAA.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed rule
will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State,
local, or tribal governments; individuals; businesses; or
organizations. OMB has reviewed and approved the application form that
property owners use to apply for approval of a CCAA and associated
enhancement of survival permit (Form 3-200-54) and assigned OMB Control
Number 1018-0094, which expires January 31, 2017. 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.): (a) On the basis of information contained in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act section above, this proposed rule would not
``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. We have
determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2
U.S.C. 1502, that this rule would not impose a cost of $100 million or
more in any given year on local or State governments or private
entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained
above, small governments would not be affected because the proposed
rule would not place additional requirements on any city, county, or
other local municipalities.
(b) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100
million or greater in any year; that is, this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. This proposed rule would impose no obligations on State, local, or
tribal governments.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would
not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule would not
pertain to ``taking'' of private property interests, nor would it
directly affect private property. A takings implication assessment is
not required because this proposed rule (1) would not effectively
compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and
(2) would not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the
land or aquatic resources. This proposed rule would substantially
advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of
endangered and threatened species) and would not present a barrier to
all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have significant Federalism effects
and have determined that a federalism summary impact statement is not
required. This proposed rule pertains only to approving enhancement of
survival permits in conjunction with a CCAA under the ESA, and would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988. This proposed rule would clarify the issuance
criteria for an enhancement of survival permit associated with a CCAA
under the ESA.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have considered possible
effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have preliminarily
determined that there are no potential adverse effects of issuing this
proposed rule. Our intent is to provide clarity in regard to the net
conservation benefit requirements for a CCAA to be approved, including
any agreements in which Tribes may choose to participate. We will
continue to keep our tribal obligations in mind as we finalize this
proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
We analyzed the proposed regulations in accordance with the
criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4332(c)), the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and
the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures (516 DM 2 and 8; 43
CFR part 46) and determined that the proposed regulations are
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent
with 40 CFR 1508.4 and 43 CFR 46.210(i). This categorical exclusion
applies to policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are
``of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature.'' This action does not trigger an extraordinary circumstance,
as outlined in 43 CFR 46.215, applicable to the categorical exclusion.
Therefore, the proposed regulations do not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule, if
made final, is not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Clarity of This Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule or policy we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
[[Page 26772]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter A of chapter
IV, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.22 by revising paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.22 Permits for scientific purposes, enhancement of
propagation or survival, or for incidental taking.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) Duration of the Candidate Conservation Agreement. The duration
of a Candidate Conservation Agreement covered by a permit issued under
this paragraph (d) must be sufficient to achieve a net conservation
benefit, which is defined as the cumulative benefits of specific
conservation measures designed to improve the status of a covered
species by removing or minimizing threats, stabilizing populations, and
increasing its numbers and improving its habitat.
(i) The benefit would be measured by the projected increase in the
species' population or improvement of the species' habitat, taking into
account the duration of the Agreement and any off-setting adverse
effects attributable to the incidental taking allowed by the
enhancement of survival permit.
(ii) The conservation measures and management activities covered by
the agreement must be designed to reduce or eliminate those current and
future threats on the property that are under the property owner's
control, in order to increase the species populations or improve its
habitat.
(iii) In the case where the species and habitat is already
adequately managed to the benefit of the species, a net conservation
benefit will be achieved when the property owner commits to manage the
species for a specified period of time with the anticipation that the
population will increase or habitat quality will improve.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.32 by revising paragraph (d)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.32 Permits--general.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) Duration of the Candidate Conservation Agreement. The duration
of a Candidate Conservation Agreement covered by a permit issued under
this paragraph (d) must be sufficient to achieve a net conservation
benefit, which is defined as the cumulative benefits of specific
conservation measures designed to improve the status of a covered
species by removing or minimizing threats, stabilizing populations, and
increasing its numbers and improving its habitat.
(i) The benefit would be measured by the projected increase in the
species' population or improvement of the species' habitat, taking into
account the duration of the Agreement and any off-setting adverse
effects attributable to the incidental taking allowed by the
enhancement of survival permit.
(ii) The conservation measures and management activities covered by
the agreement must be designed to reduce or eliminate those current and
future threats on the property that are under the property owner's
control, in order to increase the species populations or improve its
habitat.
(iii) In the case where the species and habitat is already
adequately managed to the benefit of the species, a net conservation
benefit will be achieved when the property owner commits to manage the
species for a specified period of time with the anticipation that the
population will increase or habitat quality will improve.
Dated: April 13, 2016.
Noah Matson,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-10483 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P