69878 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

53Myers, et al. 2003. ‘‘Prenatal Methylmercury 

Exposure from Ocean Fish Consumption in the 

Seychelles Child Development Study.’’ The Lancet. 

Vol. 361; May, 2003. 

54Crump, et al. 1998. ‘‘Influence of Prenatal 

Mercury Exposure Upon Scholastic and 

Psychological Test Performance: Benchmark 

Analysis of a New Zealand Cohort.’’ Risk Analysis, 

18(6): 701–713. 

55 Grandjean. 1997. Cognitive Deficit in 7-YearOld Children with Prenatal Exposure to 

Methylmercury. Neurotoxicology, 19(6): 417–428.

56National Academy of Sciences. July 2000. op. 

cit. at 267.

57See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/

Benefits/mercuryworkshop.pdf.

cognitive functioning.53 54 55 These tests 

provided partial or full assessments of 

IQ, problem solving, social and adaptive 

behavior, language functions, motor 

skills, attention, memory, and other 

functions. NAS found that all three 

studies are ‘‘well-designed, prospective, 

longitudinal studies.’’ 56

EPA is considering using these three 

studies to conduct a benefits 

assessment. Specifically, EPA is 

considering focusing on IQ decrements 

associated with prenatal MeHg exposure 

as the initial endpoint for quantification 

and valuation of health benefits of 

reduced exposure to MeHg. This initial 

focus in IQ as the neurodevelopmental 

endpoint for quantification was 

supported by participants in a Hg 

neurotoxicity workshop held by EPA in 

November 2002.57 Reasons for focusing 

on IQ include the availability of 

thoroughly-reviewed, epidemiological 

studies assessing IQ and/or related 

cognitive outcomes suitable for IQ 

estimation; and the availability of wellestablished methods and data for the 

economic valuation of avoided IQ 

deficits. EPA recognizes that, although 

IQ is a good metric of the cognitive 

impacts of prenatal MeHg exposure, IQ 

is not a comprehensive measure of the 

neurodevelopmental effects of MeHg 

exposure.

To potentially support a benefits 

estimation, EPA is working with 

researchers from Harvard University to 

analyze whether data from the Faroe 

Islands, New Zealand, and Seychelles 

Islands studies on the relationship 

between prenatal MeHg exposure and 

neurodevelopmental outcomes can be 

integrated. The study is intended to 

estimate the relationship between the 

exposure to MeHg and decrements in 

full-scale IQ, based on all three studies. 

The Harvard study will likely assume a 

linear dose-response relationship. The 

Faroe Islands and Seychelles Islands 

studies did not conduct the complete 

battery of tests used to estimate fullscale IQ. Therefore, the study is 

designed to use the results from the tests 

administered to predict full-scale IQ. 

This analysis will be peer-reviewed and 

placed in the docket as soon as it is 

available. 

EPA is considering using a K-model to 

fit population-level dose-response 

relationships to the pooled data from 

the three studies. EPA is also 

considering, for the purposes of a 

national-level benefits assessment, to set 

K = 1, which assumes a linear 

relationship between exposure and 

effects. 

The practicality of using a linear (K = 

1) model is the primary reason that the 

Agency is considering use of such a 

model. A linear model would allow us 

to estimate the benefits of reductions in 

exposure due to power plants without a 

complete assessment of the other 

sources of exposure. Other models 

would require information on the joint 

distribution of exposure from power 

plants and other sources to estimate the 

benefits of reducing the exposure due to 

power plants, which would require 

much more precise information about 

consumption patterns than a K-model 

would require. 

EPA is seeking comment on all 

aspects of the methodology for 

estimating the relationship between 

reductions in MeHg exposure and 

improvements in health. In particular, 

we are seeking comment on the 

following: 

a. The focus on neurodevelopmental 

health of children. 

b. The selection of IQ as an endpoint 

for quantification of 

neurodevelopmental effects and 

whether it is an appropriate endpoint 

for benefits analysis for reduced 

exposure to MeHg. 

c. Whether other neurodevelopmental 

effects can be quantified and are 

amenable to economic valuation. 

d. Whether, and if so how, data from 

the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and 

Seychelles Islands studies can be 

integrated for the purposes of a benefits 

assessment. 

e. The choice of the K = 1 model for 

the estimating the relationship between 

exposure and IQ and practical 

alternatives to that approach. 

f. The appropriateness and 

consistency of using a linear doseresponse model given the RfD 

established by EPA in 2001 (reflecting 

the NAS review in 2000), which 

assumes a threshold dose below which 

there is not likely to be an appreciable 

risk of deleterious effects during a 

lifetime.

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 72 and 75 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Electric utilities.

Dated: November 29, 2004. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards.

[FR Doc. 04–26579 Filed 11–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AJ10

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of Availability of the 

Draft Economic Analysis on the 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Allium munzii (Munz’s 

onion)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and reopening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the federally endangered 

Allium munzii (Munz’s onion), and the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for Munz’s onion. The 

comment period will provide the 

public, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and Tribes with an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments on this proposal and its 

respective draft economic analysis. 

Comments previously submitted for this 

proposed rule need not be resubmitted 

as they have already been incorporated 

into the public record and will be fully 

considered in any final decision.

DATES: We will accept all comments and 

information until 5 p.m. on or before 

January 3, 2005. Any comments 

received after the closing date may not 

be considered in the final decisions on 

this action.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by one 

of the following methods: 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69879

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the 

above address, or fax your comments to 

(760) 731–9618. 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw1cfwoalmu@r1.fws.gov. For directions 

on how to submit electronic filing of 

comments, see the ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ section. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposed critical 

habitat rule for Allium munzii (69 FR 

31569) will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the above 

address. You may obtain copies of the 

draft economic analysis for Allium 

munzii by contacting the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office at the above address. 

The draft economic analysis and the 

proposed rule for critical habitat 

designation also are available on the 

Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov/. In 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please obtain copies of 

documents directly from the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office at the above 

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above 

address (telephone (760) 431–9440; 

facsimile (760) 431–9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We solicit comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning our 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Allium munzii (69 FR 31569) and 

our draft economic analysis for the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat as provided by section 

4 of the Act, including whether the 

benefit of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Allium 

munzii and its habitat, and which 

habitat is essential to the conservation 

of the species 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 potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities or families; 

(5) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies and adequately addresses the 

likely effects and resulting costs arising 

from the California Environmental 

Quality Act and other State and local 

laws attributable to the proposed critical 

habitat designation. If not, what other 

cost are overlooked?;

(6) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat for 

Allium munzii; 

(8) Whether the economic analysis 

adequately addresses the indirect effects 

(e.g., property tax losses due to reduced 

home construction, losses to local 

business due to reduced construction 

activity), and accurately defines and 

captures opportunity costs associated 

with the critical habitat designation; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land and water use 

regulatory controls that could arise from 

the designation of critical habitat for 

this species; 

(10) Whether the designation of 

critical habitat will result in 

disproportionate economic or other 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion from 

the final designation; 

(11) Whether the economic analysis is 

consistent with the Service’s listing 

regulations because this analysis should 

identify all costs related to the 

designation of critical habitat for Allium 

munzii and this designation was 

intended to take place at the time this 

species was listed; and 

(12) All but one known occurrence of 

Allium munzii have been proposed for 

exclusion from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

because they are within approved HCPs 

or the Western Riverside MSHCP. These 

areas are proposed for exclusion from 

critical habitat because we believe the 

value of excluding these areas 

outweighs the value of including them. 

We specifically solicit comment on the 

inclusion or exclusion of such areas 

and: (a) Whether these areas are 

essential; (b) whether these areas 

warrant exclusion; and (c) the basis for 

excluding these areas as critical habitat 

(section 4(b)(2) of the Act); and 

(13) Whether our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concern and 

comments. 

Comments previously submitted for 

this proposed rule need not be 

resubmitted as they have already been 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in any final 

decision. If you wish to comment, you 

may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods (see

ADDRESSES section). 

If you submit comments via e-mail, 

please submit them as an ASCII file and 

avoid the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption. Please also 

include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–AJ10’’ in your 

e-mail subject header and your name 

and return address in the body of your 

message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your internet message, 

contact us directly by calling our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at 

phone number (760) 431–9440. Please 

note that the e-mail address, 

fw1cfwoalmu@r1.fws.gov, will be closed 

out at the termination of the public 

comment period.

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

Background 

Allium munzii is a bulb-forming 

perennial herb in the Liliaceae (lily 

family). The plants are dormant except 

in the spring and early summer months, 

and 3 to 5 years are required after seeds 

germinate for the plant to reach maturity 

and produce flowers (Schmidt 1980). 

Allium munzii is endemic to mesic clay 

soils in western Riverside County, 

69880 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

California, throughout the foothills east 

of the Santa Ana Mountains extending 

south and east to the low hills south of 

Hemet (69 FR 31569; June 4, 2004). At 

present, there are 19 occurrences of 

Allium munzii according to the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB 2004). One historical 

population in the CNDDB was lost to 

development; however, the extent of the 

historical distribution of this plant is 

unknown. At the time of listing, the 

Service estimated the total population to 

be approximately 20,000 to 70,000 

individuals. Please refer to the final 

listing rule for a more detailed 

discussion of the species’ taxonomic 

history and description. 

We published the final rule listing 

Allium munzii as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

in the Federal Register on October 13, 

1998 (63 FR 54975). The listing was 

based on a variety of factors including 

habitat destruction and fragmentation 

from agricultural and urban 

development, clay mining, off-road 

vehicle activity, cattle and sheep 

grazing, weed abatement, fire 

suppression practices, and competition 

from alien plant species. A recovery 

plan for this species has not yet been 

completed. 

At the time of listing, we concluded 

that designation of critical habitat for 

Allium munzii was not prudent because 

such designation would not benefit the 

species. On November 15, 2001, a 

lawsuit was filed against the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) and the 

Service by the Center for Biological 

Diversity and California Native Plant 

Society, challenging our ‘‘not prudent’’

determinations for eight plants 

including A. munzii (No. CV–01–2101) 

(CBD et al. v. USDOI). A second lawsuit 

asserting the same challenge was filed 

against DOI and the Service by the 

Building Industry Legal Defense 

Foundation (BILD) on November 21, 

2001 (No. CV–01–2145) (BILD v. 

USDOI). Both cases were consolidated 

on March 19, 2002, and all parties 

agreed to remand the critical habitat 

determinations to the Service for 

additional consideration. In an order 

dated July 1, 2002, the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of 

California directed us to reconsider our 

not prudent finding and publish a 

proposed critical habitat rule for Allium 

munzii, if prudent, on or before May 30, 

2004. 

On June 4, 2004, we published a 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for Allium munzii (69 FR 31569). 

We proposed to designate 227 acres (ac) 

(92 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat on 

Federal (U.S. Forest Service) lands in 

western Riverside County, California. 

We excluded 1,068 ac (433 ha) of State, 

local, and private lands from proposed 

critical habitat within approved Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) and the 

Western Riverside Multiple Species 

HCP (MSHCP), Riverside County, 

California. The first public comment 

period on the proposed designation 

closed on August 3, 2004. 

Critical habitat identifies specific 

areas, both occupied and unoccupied, 

that are essential to the conservation of 

a listed species and that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act prohibits the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions affecting areas 

designated as critical habitat must 

consult with us on the effects of their 

proposed actions, pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. We note, however, 

that a recent 9th Circuit judicial 

opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. 

United State Fish and Wildlife Service,

has invalidated the Service’s regulation 

defining destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. We are 

currently reviewing the decision to 

determine what effect it may have on 

the outcome of consultations pursuant 

to section 7 of the Act.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat on 

the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact to national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

have prepared a draft Economic 

Analysis of the April 27, 2004 (69 FR 

31569), proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Allium munzii.

The draft Economic Analysis 

considers the potential economic effects 

of actions relating to the conservation of 

Allium munzii, including costs 

associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 

the Act, and those cost attributable to 

designating critical habitat. It further 

considers the economic effects of 

protective measures taken as a result of 

other Federal, State, and local laws that 

aid habitat conservation for Allium 

munzii in essential habitat areas. The 

analysis considers both economic 

efficiency and distributional effects. In 

the case of habitat conservation, 

efficiency effects generally reflect the 

‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the 

commitment of resources to comply 

with habitat protection measures (e.g., 

lost economic opportunities associated 

with restrictions on land use). This 

analysis also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on small entities 

and the energy industry. This 

information can be used by decisionmakers to assess whether the effects of 

the designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, this analysis looks 

retrospectively at costs that have been 

incurred to date since the date the 

species was listed as endangered 

species, and projects those costs that 

may occur in the 20 years following the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Total economic impacts resulting 

from past Allium munzii-related 

conservation activities (i.e., activities 

since the species was listed in 1998) on 

all essential habitat are estimated to be 

$4.2 million. For the actual component 

of essential habitat being designated as 

critical habitat, the total estimated 

economic impact would be $9,866. In 

terms of future economic impacts, total 

economic efficiency costs resulting from 

Allium munzii-related conservation 

activities are estimated at $6.4 million 

from 2005 through 2025 for all essential 

habitat. For the actual component of 

essential habitat being designated as 

critical habitat, the total estimated 

economic efficiency costs would be 

$23,964 from 2005 through 2025. All of 

those costs are attributable to project 

modification and administrative costs 

that would be borne by the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this proposed designation of 

critical habitat is a significant rule only 

in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues. However, the Economic 

Analysis indicates that the proposed 

designation will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or affect the economy in a 

material way. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69881

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 

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. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. The SBREFA also amended the 

RFA to require a certification statement. 

We are hereby certifying that this 

proposed 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 (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 rule as well as the 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. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies; nonFederal activities are not affected by the 

designation if they lack a Federal nexus. 

In areas where the species is present, 

Federal agencies funding, permitting, or 

implementing activities are already 

required to avoid jeopardizing the 

continued existence of Allium munzii

through consultation with us under 

section 7 of the Act. If this critical 

habitat designation is finalized, Federal 

agencies must also consult with us to 

ensure that their activities do not 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat through consultation 

with us.

Should a federally funded, permitted, 

or implemented project be proposed 

that may affect designated critical 

habitat, we will work with the Federal 

action agency and any applicant, 

through section 7 consultation, to 

identify ways to implement the 

proposed project while minimizing or 

avoiding any adverse effect to the 

species or critical habitat. In our 

experience, the vast majority of such 

projects can be successfully 

implemented with at most minor 

changes that avoid significant economic 

impacts to project proponents. 

Based on our experience with section 

7 consultations for all listed species, 

virtually all projects—including those 

that, in their initial proposed form, 

would result in jeopardy or adverse 

modification determinations in section 

7 consultations—can be implemented 

successfully with, at most, the adoption 

of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These measures, by definition, must be 

economically feasible and within the 

scope of authority of the Federal agency 

involved in the consultation. The kinds 

of actions that may be included in 

future reasonable and prudent 

alternatives include avoidance, 

conservation set-asides, management of 

competing non-native species, 

restoration of degraded habitat, 

construction of protective fencing, and 

regular monitoring. These measures are 

not likely to result in a significant 

economic impact to project proponents. 

In the case of Allium munzii, our 

review of the consultation history for 

this plant suggests that the proposed 

designation of critical habitat is not 

likely to have a significant impact on 

any small entities or classes of small 

entities. We considered the potential 

relative cost of compliance to these 

small entities and evaluated only small 

entities that are expected to be directly 

affected by the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. Based on the 

consultation history for Allium munzii,

we do not anticipate that the proposed 

designation of critical habitat will result 

in increased compliance costs for small 

entities. The business activities of these 

small entities and their effects on 

Allium munzii or its proposed critical 

habitat have not directly triggered a 

section 7 consultation with the Service 

under the jeopardy standard and likely 

would not trigger a section 7 

consultation under the adverse 

modification standard after designation 

of critical habitat. The proposed 

designation of critical habitat does not, 

therefore, create a new cost for the small 

entities to comply with the proposed 

designation. Instead, proposed 

designation only impacts Federal 

agencies that conduct, fund, or permit 

activities that may affect critical habitat 

for Allium munzii. Moreover, none of 

the small entities have been applicants 

with a Federal agency for a section 7 

consultation with the Service. 

As discussed in the Economic 

Analysis, activities in the proposed 

critical habitat unit are expected to 

result in small additional costs borne by 

the U.S. Forest Service and, possibly, 

the current special permit holders at the 

electric tower site. The U.S. Forest 

Service is a Federal agency and 

therefore not considered a small entity 

under SBREFA. In addition, only one of 

the four special permit holders is a 

small entity, and the projected impact to 

that small business is $250 to $1,000 in 

one year (representing 0.2 to 0.4 of the 

company’s revenue). Utility companies 

are not expected to incur additional 

project-related costs in the critical 

habitat unit, but may incur additional 

costs in essential habitat areas. 

However, the utility companies 

involved do not qualify as small 

entities. Of the local government 

jurisdictions in close proximity to the 

critical habitat unit or essential habitat, 

only one qualifies as a small 

government. This government is not 

expected to be impacted by future 

conservation efforts for Allium munzii,

according to the Economic Analysis. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and we have concluded that it 

would not. Future consultations are not 

likely to affect a substantial number of 

small entities. We have no indication 

that the types of activities we review 

under section 7 of the Act will change 

significantly in the future. Thus, we 

conclude that the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Allium munzii is 

not likely to result in a significant 

impact to this group of small entities. 

Therefore, we are certifying that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Allium munzii will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

69882 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 

Under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. As 

previously discussed, we have excluded 

critical habitat from lands within the 

Western Riverside MSHCP and other 

HCPs under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

The exclusion of these lands and the 

activities associated with the Western 

Riverside MSHCP and HCPs eliminates 

the potential for critical habitat in these 

excluded areas to have any effect on the 

increase in costs or prices for consumers 

or any significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation or the ability of 

U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 

foreign-based enterprises. Moreover, 100 

percent of the designated critical habitat 

is on Forest Service lands that are not 

intensively used for commercial or 

business purposes, and we anticipate 

that the designation will have little to 

no effect on costs or prices for 

consumers or any other significant 

commercial or business related 

activities. In addition, the Economic 

Analysis indicates that the proposed 

designation will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. Therefore, we believe that this 

critical habitat designation will not have 

an effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, will not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, and will not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–26473 Filed 11–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P