2013-02-05_REVISION - M1985043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Register/ Vol. 69, No. 168 /Tuesday, August 31, 2004/Rules and Regulations 53227 wide range of activities within the designation. Therefore, we concluded in the final analysis, which reviewed and incorporated public comments, that no significant economic impacts (Le, will not have annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way as defined by Office of Management and Budget and discussed further in the "Required Determinations" section below) are expected from critical habitat designation above and beyond that already imposed by listing the owl. A copy of the economic analysis is included in our supporting record and may be obtained by contacting the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) of from our Web site http: / /ifw2es.fws.govlmsol. Impacts associated solely with this rulemaking are expected to result in additional administrative costs to Action agencies due to additional consultation and documentation requirements. These additional administrative costs are expected to be on the order of $72,000 to $238,000 annually. Based on a review of consultation records, there has not been a measurable increase in the number of consultations occurring annually in those areas where owl critical habitat was finalized in 2001. Some additional administrative costs are expected for discussing adverse modification in the consultation documentation and for reinitiating consultations. Based on discussions with land management agency personnel, these costs will be small, as the amount of additional work associated with these efforts is not expected to be significant. In particular, our economic analysis found that FS Region 3 personnel are already managing owl habitat in compliance with Recovery Plan guidance, indicating this rulemaking will not result in additional impacts, with the exception of a slight increase in administrative efforts. Moreover, FS personnel Regions 2 and 4 believe that for activities within the designation, the cost of having to address the owl in their required environmental documentation is only a minor cost because little activity is occurring or planned within the designation. Additionally, the BLM in Colorado and Arizona indicated that critical habitat has been designated since 2001 and has not resulted in any significant increase in workload. Finally, the BLM in Utah indicated that only limited impacts on oil and gas activities related to this rulemaking are expected in the future because owl - related delays in drilling activities would be expected even in the absence of this designation. The amount of additional administrative costs attributable to this rulemaking (i.e., that would not occur absent the designation), is likely to be only a portion of the total forecast administrative costs. The future administrative costs attributable solely to this rulemaking are expected to be on the order of 25 percent of total forecast administrative costs of $72,000 to $238,000 annually. Based on a review of consultations that have occurred in the areas where critical habitat was designated in 2001 and on discussions with land management personnel and affected entities, additional future project modification costs are unlikely to occur under this current designation. Therefore, the incremental costs associated with this rulemaking are expected to be minimal. Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We prepared an economic analysis of this action to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical habitat. The draft economic analysis was made available for public comment and we considered those comments during the preparation of this final rule. The economic analysis indicates that this rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. Under the Act, critical habitat may not be destroyed or adversely modified by a Federal agency action; the Act does not impose any restrictions related to critical habitat on non - Federal persons unless they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal agency. Because of the potential for impacts on other Federal agencies' activities, we reviewed this action for any inconsistencies with other Federal agency actions. Based on our economic analysis and information related to implementing the listing of the species such as conducting section 7 consultations, we believe that this designation will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will it materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996), 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. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification statement. We are hereby certifying that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses defined at 13 CFR 121.201. Small businesses that are potentially impacted by the critical habitat designation for the owl, as identified in the final economic analysis, include the timber industry (i.e., timber tract operations, logging, support activities for forestry, wood producer manufacturing, and pulpmills); livestock grazing industry (i.e., beef cattle ranching and farming); oil and gas industry (i.e., oil and gas extraction); and rock quarry industry (i.e., stone mining and quarrying). SBREFA does not explicitly define either "substantial number" or "significant economic impact." Consequently, to assess whether a "substantial number" of small entities is