Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 35025 

assessment, security test and evaluation, and 

disaster recovery/continuity of operations 

plan. The Contractor shall comply with the 

accepted accreditation documentation. 

(e) Annual verification. On an annual 

basis, the Contractor shall submit verification 

to the Contracting Officer that the IT Security 

Plan remains valid. 

(f) Warning notices. The Contractor shall 

ensure that the following banners are 

displayed on all DOS systems (both public 

and private) operated by the Contractor prior 

to allowing anyone access to the system: 

Government Warning 

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING** 

Unauthorized access is a violation of U.S. 

law and Department of State policy, and may 

result in criminal or administrative penalties. 

Users shall not access other user’s or system 

files without proper authority. Absence of 

access controls IS NOT authorization for 

access! DOS information systems and related 

equipment are intended for communication, 

transmission, processing and storage of U.S. 

Government information. These systems and 

equipment are subject to monitoring by law 

enforcement and authorized Department 

officials. Monitoring may result in the 

acquisition, recording, and analysis of all 

data being communicated, transmitted, 

processed or stored in this system by law 

enforcement and authorized Department 

officials. Use of this system constitutes 

consent to such monitoring. 

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING** 

(g) Privacy Act notification. The Contractor 

shall ensure that the following banner is 

displayed on all DOS systems that contain 

Privacy Act information operated by the 

Contractor prior to allowing anyone access to 

the system: 

This system contains information protected 

under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974 (Pub. L. 93–579). Any privacy 

information displayed on the screen or 

printed shall be protected from unauthorized 

disclosure. Employees who violate privacy 

safeguards may be subject to disciplinary 

actions, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. 

(h) Privileged or limited privileged access. 

Contractor personnel requiring privileged 

access or limited privileged access to systems 

operated by the Contractor for DOS or 

interconnected to a DOS network shall 

adhere to the specific contract security 

requirements contained within this contract 

and/or the Contract Security Classification 

Specification (DD Form 254). 

(i) Training. The Contractor shall ensure 

that its employees performing under this 

contract receive annual IT security training 

in accordance with OMB circular A–130, 

FISMA, and NIST requirements, as they may 

be amended from time to time during the 

term of this contract, with a specific 

emphasis on rules of behavior. 

(j) Government access. The Contractor shall 

afford the Government access to the 

Contractor’s and subcontractor’s facilities, 

installations, operations, documentation, 

databases and personnel used in performance 

of the contract. Access shall be provided to 

the extent required to carry out a program of 

IT inspection (to include vulnerability 

testing), investigation and audit to safeguard 

against threats and hazards to the integrity, 

availability and confidentiality of DOS data 

or to the function of information technology 

systems operated on behalf of DOS, and to 

preserve evidence of computer crime. 

(k) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall 

incorporate the substance of this clause in all 

subcontracts that meet the conditions in 

paragraph (a) of this clause. 

(l) Notification regarding employees. The 

Contractor shall immediately notify the 

Contracting Officer when an employee either 

begins or terminates employment when that 

employee has access to DOS information 

systems or data. 

(m) Termination. Failure on the part of the 

Contractor to comply with the terms of this 

clause may result in termination of this 

contract. 

(End of clause) 

Dated: June 13, 2007. 

Corey M. Rindner, 

Procurement Executive, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 07–3116 Filed 6–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–24–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU91 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, notice of availability 

of draft economic analysis, and 

amended required determinations. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis for the proposed critical habitat 

designation and amended required 

determinations for the proposal. The 

draft economic analysis estimates the 

post-designation impacts associated 

with marbled murrelet conservation 

efforts in areas proposed for final 

critical habitat designation to range from 

$69.4 million to $1.42 billion at present 

value over a 20-year period in 

undiscounted dollars, $38.1 million to 

$535 million ($2.22 million to $16.8 

million annualized) assuming a 3 

percent discount rate, or $24.2 million 

to $251 million ($2.18 million to $12 

million annualized) assuming a 7 

percent discount rate. We are reopening 

the comment period to allow all 

interested parties the opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed rule and the associated draft 

economic analysis. Comments 

previously submitted on the proposed 

rule need not be resubmitted as they are 

already part of the public record and 

will be fully considered in preparation 

of the final rule. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until July 26, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials by any one of several methods: 

1. Submit written comments and 

information by mail or hand deliver to 

Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

510 Desmond Drive, SE., Suite 101, 

Lacey, WA 98503–1273. 

2. Send comments by electronic mail 

(e-mail) to MurreletCH@fws.gov. Please 

see the Public Comments Solicited 

section below for information about 

electronic filing. 

3. Fax your comments to 360–753–

9405. 

4. Go to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Berg, Field Supervisor, Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, at 

the address listed in the ADDRESSES

section (telephone 360–753–9440; 

facsimile 360–753–9405). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period. We solicit comments 

on the original proposed critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on September 12, 2006 (71 FR 

53838), and on our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation. 

We will consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why habitat should or 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

the benefit of designation would 

outweigh threats to the species caused 

by designation such that the designation 

of critical habitat is prudent; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of marbled 

murrelet habitat, what areas should be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

35026 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

included in the designations that were 

occupied at the time of listing that 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of the species and why, 

and what areas that were not occupied 

at the time of listing that are 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, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts; 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments; 

(6) The extent to which the 

description of economic impacts in the 

draft economic analysis is complete and 

accurate; 

(7) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the draft 

economic analysis, and how the 

consequences of such reactions, if likely 

to occur, would relate to the 

conservation and regulatory benefits of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation; 

(8) Whether the benefits of exclusion 

in any particular area outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion under section 

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

(9) Economic data on the incremental 

effects that would result from 

designating any particular area as 

critical habitat. 

If you wish to submit comments 

electronically, please include ‘‘Attn: 

RIN 1018-AU91’’ in the 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 

message, contact us directly by calling 

our Western Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office at 360–753–9440. Please 

note that the e-mail address 

MurreletCH@fws.gov will be closed at 

the termination of the public comment 

period. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposal to 

designate critical habitat, will be 

available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Western Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Copies of the proposed critical 

habitat rule for the marbled murrelet 

and the draft economic analysis are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/westwafwo/ or by request 

to the Field Supervisor (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Background 

On September 12, 2006, we published 

a proposed rule to revise critical habitat 

for the marbled murrelet in Washington, 

Oregon, and California (71 FR 53838). 

For a description of Federal actions 

concerning the marbled murrelet that 

occurred prior to our September 12, 

2006, proposed rule, please refer to that 

proposed rule and the original final 

critical habitat rule for the marbled 

murrelet (61 FR 26256; May 24, 1996). 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, and specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions affecting 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. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, or any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. Based 

on the September 12, 2006, proposed 

rule to revise critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet (71 FR 53838), we 

have prepared a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

The draft economic analysis is 

intended to quantify the economic 

impacts of all potential conservation 

efforts for the marbled murrelet; some of 

these costs will likely be inrurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. The analysis quantifies 

economic impacts of murrelet 

conservation efforts associated with the 

following land uses: (1) Timber 

management, (2) development, (3) 

recreation, (4) other land use activities 

including transportation and mining, 

and (5) administrative costs associated 

with Endangered Species Act section 7 

consultations. 

The draft economic analysis estimates 

the post-designation impacts associated 

with murrelet conservation efforts in 

areas proposed for final critical habitat 

designation to range from $69.4 million 

to $1.42 billion at present value over a 

20-year period in undiscounted dollars, 

$38.1 million to $535 million ($2.22 

million to $16.8 million annualized) 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or 

$24.2 million to $251 million ($2.18 

million to $12 million annualized) 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of the 

marbled murrelet, including costs 

associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 

the Act, and including those attributable 

to the designation of 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 the marbled 

murrelet in areas containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The draft 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 (such as 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 

decision-makers to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. Finally, this draft analysis looks 

retrospectively at costs that have been 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 35027 

incurred since the date the marbled 

murrelet was listed as threatened (57 FR 

45328; October 1, 1992), and considers 

those costs that may occur in the 20 

years following a designation of critical 

habitat. 

As stated earlier, we solicit data and 

comments from the public on this draft 

economic analysis, as well as on all 

aspects of the proposal. We may revise 

the proposal or its supporting 

documents to incorporate or address 

new information received during the 

comment period. In particular, we may 

exclude an area from critical habitat if 

we determine that the benefits of 

excluding the area outweigh the benefits 

of including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such exclusion will not result 

in the extinction of the species. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our September 12, 2006, proposed 

rule (71 FR 53838), we indicated that we 

would be deferring our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders was 

available in the draft economic analysis. 

Those data are now available for our use 

in making these determinations. In this 

notice we are affirming the information 

contained in the proposed rule 

concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

13132; E.O. 12988; the Paperwork 

Reduction Act; and the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). Based on 

the information made available to us in 

the draft economic analysis, we are 

amending our Required Determinations, 

as provided below, concerning E.O. 

12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with E.O. 12866, this 

document is a significant rule because it 

may raise novel legal and policy issues. 

However, on the basis of our draft 

economic analysis, we do not anticipate 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for the marbled murrelet would have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the timeline 

for publication in the Federal Register, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not formally reviewed the 

proposed rule or accompanying draft 

economic analysis. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office 

of Management and Budget, Circular A–

4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 

Circular A–4, once it has been 

determined that the Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, and then the 

agency will need to consider alternative 

regulatory approaches. Since the 

determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement pursuant to the 

Act, we must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in our designation constitutes 

our regulatory alternative analysis. 

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 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 certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. In our proposed rule, we 

withheld our determination of whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant effect as defined under 

SBREFA until we completed our draft 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation so that we would have the 

factual basis for our determination. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), 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 designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet would affect a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered the number of small entities 

affected within particular types of 

economic activities (e.g., timber 

management activities). We considered 

each industry or category individually 

to determine if certification is 

appropriate. In estimating the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement; some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected by the designation. If 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation is made final, Federal 

agencies must consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act if their activities 

may affect designated critical habitat. 

In our draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small entities resulting from 

the protection of the marbled murrelet 

and its habitat related to the listing of 

the species and the proposed 

designation of its critical habitat. Small 

timber management interests were 

identified as entities that could be 

affected by the proposed rule. Impacts 

described in Section 4 and Appendix B 

of the draft economic analysis are 

predominantly decreased land values 

associated with precluding timber 

harvest in areas proposed for final 

critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. 

These impacts would be expected to be 

born by the current landowners at the 

time of final critical habitat designation. 

The potentially affected timber acres are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

35028 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

few relative to the total timberland area 

in the counties containing areas 

proposed for critical habitat. As a result, 

regional businesses that support or are 

supported by the timber companies 

(e.g., sawmills and logging operations) 

are not expected to be measurably 

affected by murrelet conservation. 

Please refer to our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, and Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. This proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet is considered a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866 due to its potential raising of 

novel legal and policy issues. OMB has 

provided guidance for implementing 

this Executive Order that outlines nine 

outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a 

significant adverse effect’’ when 

compared without the regulatory action 

under consideration. The draft 

economic analysis finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on the information 

in the draft economic analysis, energyrelated impacts associated with the 

marbled murrelet conservation activities 

within proposed critical habitat are not 

expected. As such, the proposed 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use, and a 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7 of the Act. NonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat. 

However, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply; nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of large 

Federal entitlement programs on to 

State governments. 

(b) We do not believe that the 

proposed designation will significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments, 

because it will not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or greater in 

any year; that is, it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. The proposed 

designation of critical habitat imposes 

no obligations on State or local 

governments. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

proposing critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet. Critical habitat 

designation does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. In conclusion, the designation 

of critical habitat for the marbled 

murrelet does not pose significant 

takings implications. 

Authors 

The authors of this notice are the staff 

of the Division of Endangered Species, 

Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

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

Dated: June 12, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–3134 Filed 6–21–07; 4:37 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS