WSP06932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ( l 01)2957 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 191 / Monday, Oclober 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 38907 The Services deliberately pl.:Jced the substanlive consideration of economic impacts of critical habitat designation in 8 section apart from that discussing the biological criteria for designaLing critical habitat. This was done in response to the expressed intent of Congress that economic considerations not affect or delay the listing of species. In that designations of critical habitat are custumarily included in rules that list species. the consideration of economic impacts before issuance of a proposed rule could inappropriately delay proposal. Once a rule is proposed. however. the Services are ordinarily required to take final action wilhin 1 year and. if economic analyses are not yet complete. must extend the critical habitat portion of a rule while making the listing final. Thus. if economic impacts are not considered until after the proposal slage, the possibility that economic considerations will prevent the listing of a species is reduced. The Services do nol believe this represents a diminution in the weight given to the consideration of the economics of a des:gnafion, considerafion of whkh wjJl be completed once a proposed listing has been published. Moreover. since the Services expressly solicit public . comment on the economic consequences of a given critical habitat proposal. the Services will have the benefit of such comments as they develop a final rule. EPA requested clarification of the intended scope and methodology of any economic analysis performed on a designation of critical habitat. specifically asking whether environmental as weHaB economic impacts would be addressed and whether standard cost-benefit techniques would be used. EPA recommended that both classes of impacls be addressed and !hallhe analytical methodology be ciled in lhe final rule. The Services intend Ihat analyses performed under this section will be focused primarily on the economic costs associated with designation, which was the intent of Congress in requiring such analyses. Consideration of biological impacts of critical habitat designation are more properly addressed in determining whether designation is prudent and will be of benefit to a species. The methodology and specific techniques. employed have be on developed and refined since economic considerations were first required by the 1978 Amendments io the Endangered Species Act. To fully address the issues a( hand, these procedures must vary according to the specific area under review. Impacts should not be expected to remain static or to apply uniformly to all cases. The Services' consideration of economic and other impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat will cover all activities affecting or affected by the proposed critical habitat designation. The best available data on economic and other impacts must be gat be red on the full .cope of proposed critical habitat to Bssist the Services in determining whether adjustments should be made before the critical habitat designation is made final. EPA requested that this section and t 424.12 be cross-referenced. For the reasons mentioned above in reply to a recommendation from MSS. the Services believe thaI it is advisable to keep separate the biological and economic considerations that lead to a final designation of critical habitat. EPA also recommended that the provision of this section that prohibits the Secretary from excluding any arca from critical habitat if so doing would result in extinction of the species concerned be altered to prohibit exclusion if so doing would "preclude the recovery of the species." The Services appreciate the inconsistency between the discretion allowed the Secretary-in excluding areas from critical habitat and the stated purpose of Ihe Act of providing not only for the survival of species. but for their - recovery as well. Nevertheless. the Services must follow the provision of the Act that allows exclusions of certain areas from critical habitat so long as it will not result in extinction of the species concerned. It should be noted that this provision is permissive rather than prescriptive. and does not require exclusion of an area from critical habitat under any given set of circumstances. S(Jction 424.20 Emergency rules. NWF recommended that this section include a provision that would require the Secretary to. ". . . publish emergency rules in the Federal Register within 10 days after they are issued (sic] . . .." The Services assume that this is intended to mean that emergency rules should be published within 10 days after being approved by the Secretary. inasmuch as issuance and publication are the same. The Services intend that emergency rules be published as quickly as possible after approval, but see no need 10 make this a regulatory requircmef!.t. DOD recommended that this section contain a requirement to notify concerned Federal land managers of emergency rules. The provision for notification of State agencies of emergency rules is adopted directly from the Act. The Services do routinely notify affected Federal agencies as well when adopting emergency rules, but do not b~lieve it necessary to make this a regulatory requirement. since inadvertent failure to comply with such a required notification could then cast doubt on the validity of a rule. Nevertheless. the Services will endeavor to notify Fcderalland managers of such emergency rules to fhe maximum extent possible. Executive Order 12291. Paperwork Reduction Act. and Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior. as lead agency in the development of this rule. has determined that it is not a major nIle as defined by Executive Order 12291; that the rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as described in the Regulatory Flexibilily Act (Pub. L. 96-354); and tbal the rule does nol contain any information collection or recordkeeping requirements 8S defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 [Pub. L.96-511). Nationnl Environmental Policy Act The Fisb and Wildlife Service has determined that these proposed . regulations are categorically excluded from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl requirements [Part 518 of lhe Departmental Manual. Chapter e. Appendix I. section 1.4A.(3) categorically excludes the issuance of regulatory procedures when the impacts arc limited to administrative or technological ecrects). This rule is procedural in nature. adopted in strict.. non.discretionary compliance with the Amendments and will have no independent environmental consequences. Author . The principal author of this rule is Dr. John J. Fay. Office of Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washinglon;D.C. 20240 [703/231>-1975). List of Subjects In 50 CFR Part 424 Administrative practice and procedure. Endangered and threatened wildlife. Fish. Marine mammals. Plants [agricullure). Regulation Promulgation Accordingly. Part 424 o(Chapter IV of Tille 50 oflhe U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is revised to read as sel forth below: