Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 46189 

Division (6PD), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733, telephone (214) 

665–8544; fax number 214–665–7263; or 

electronic mail at 

loesel.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the 

Louisiana State Plan. 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a non-controversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for this is set forth in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. If 

no adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn, and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comments on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is published in the Rules section 

of this Federal Register. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412. 

Dated: August 8, 2007. 

Lawrence Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E7–16170 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8455–7] 

New Mexico: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has 

applied to EPA for Final Authorization 

of changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 

Authorization to the State of New 

Mexico. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by an 

immediate final rule. EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the immediate final 

rule because we believe this action is 

not controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

immediate final rule. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the immediate final rule will 

become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we receive 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will withdraw the immediate final rule 

and it will not take effect. We will then 

respond to public comments in a later 

final rule based on this proposal. You 

may not have another opportunity for 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this action, you must do so at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

September 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, at the address shown below. 

You can examine copies of the materials 

submitted by the State of New Mexico 

during normal business hours at the 

following locations: New Mexico 

Environment Department, 2905 Rodeo 

Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico 87505–6303, phone 

number (505) 476–6035 and EPA, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, phone number (214) 

665–8533, comments may also be 

submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the immediate final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

immediate final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register. 

Dated: July 25, 2007. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E7–16243 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU79 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Cape Sable Seaside 

Sparrow 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, availability of draft 

economic analysis, announcement of 

public hearing, and amended required 

determinations. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening 

the comment period on our October 31, 

2006, proposed revision of critical 

habitat for the Cape Sable seaside 

sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus 

mirabilis 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 revision and provide 

amended required determinations for 

the proposal. The draft economic 

analysis estimated potential future 

impacts associated with conservation 

efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed 

for designation to be $32.2 million over 

the next 20 years (undiscounted). The 

present value of these impacts is $26.9 

million, using a discount rate of 3 

percent, or $22.2 million, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. The 

annualized value of these impacts is 

$1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 

percent, or $2.1 million, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. Finally, we 

announce a public hearing during the 

reopening of the comment period. We 

are taking these actions to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the original 

proposal rule and the newly available 

associated draft economic analysis. 

Previously submitted comments need 

not be resubmitted; they are already part 

of the public record that we will 

consider in preparing our final rule 

determination. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until September 17, 2007. We will hold 

one public hearing on August 29, 2007, 

on the proposed critical habitat 

designation and the draft economic 

analysis. See ‘‘Public Hearing’’ under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: If you 

wish to comment, you may submit your 

comments and information concerning 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
46190 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

this proposal by any one of the 

following methods: 

1. Mail or hand-deliver written 

comments and information to Tylan 

Dean, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

South Florida Ecological Services 

Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 

32960–3559. 

2. E-mail your comments to 

Tylan_Dean@fws.gov. Please see the 

‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information about this 

method. 

3. Fax your comments to 772–562–

4288. 

4. Submit comments via the Federal 

Rulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the site. 

Please see the ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ section below for more 

information about submitting comments 

or viewing our received materials. 

Public Hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing on August 29, 2007 at the John 

D. Campbell Agricultural Center, 18710 

S.W. 288th Street, Miami, FL. An 

information session will be held 

between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and the 

meeting will be held between 6:30 and 

8:30 p.m. You may provide oral or 

written comments at the public hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tylan Dean, South Florida Ecological 

Services office (see ADDRESSES); 

telephone 772–562–3909; facsimile 

772–562–4288. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Hearing 

On August 29, 2007, we will hold a 

public hearing on the proposed critical 

habitat designation and the draft 

economic analysis. An information 

session will be held from 5 p.m. to 6:30 

p.m. and will precede the hearing. The 

public hearing will run from 6:30 p.m. 

to 8:30 p.m. See the ADDRESSES section 

for the location of the public hearing. 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to attend and 

participate in the public hearing should 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as 

possible. To allow sufficient time to 

process requests, please call no later 

than one week before the hearing date. 

Information regarding the proposal is 

available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposal be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning the 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be designated as 

critical habitat as provided by section 4 

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

including whether designation of 

critical habitat is prudent in that (a) the 

degree of any threat to the species due 

to the designation of critical habitat is 

not increased by identification of 

critical habitat; and (b) designation 

would benefit the species; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Cape Sable 

seaside sparrow habitat, including areas 

occupied by Cape Sable seaside 

sparrows, areas containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and areas that are essential to 

the conservation of the species; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

revised 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 the draft economic 

analysis identifies all State and local 

costs attributable to the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation, and 

information on any costs that we could 

have inadvertently overlooked; 

(6) Whether the draft economic 

analysis makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat; 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with any land 

use controls that may derive from the 

revised designation of critical habitat; 

(8) Any foreseeable economic or other 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat, 

and in particular, any impacts on small 

entities or families; and other 

information that would indicate that the 

revision of critical habitat would or 

would not have any impacts on small 

entities or families; 

(9) Whether the draft economic 

analysis appropriately identifies all 

costs and benefits that could result from 

the designation; 

(10) Whether the benefits of exclusion 

of any particular area from critical 

habitat would outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act; 

(11) Economic data on the 

incremental effects that would result 

from designating any particular area as 

revised critical habitat, since it is our 

intent to include the incremental costs 

attributed to the revised critical habitat 

designation in the final economic 

analysis; and 

(12) 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. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please 

submit comments electronically to 

TylanlDean@fws.gov. Please also 

include ‘‘Attn: Cape Sable seaside 

sparrow critical habitat’’ in your e-mail 

subject header and your name and 

return address in the body of your 

message. 

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. 

Copies of the draft economic analysis 

and the proposed rule for critical habitat 

designation are available on the Internet 

at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ or 

from the South Florida Ecological 

Services Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Our final designation of critical 

habitat will take into consideration all 

comments and any additional 

information we received during both 

comment periods, including those 

provided at the public hearing. If you 

submit previous comments and 

information during the initial comment 

period on the October 31, 2006, 

proposed rule (71 FR 63980), you need 

to resubmit them, because they are 

currently part of our record and we will 

consider them in developing our final 

rule determination. On the basis of 

public comment on this analysis, the 

critical habitat proposal, and the final 

economic analysis, we may, during the 

development of our final determination, 

find that areas proposed are not 

essential, are appropriate for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are 

not appropriate for exclusion. We may 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 46191 

exclude an area from critical habitat if 

we determined that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

including a particular area as critical 

habitat, unless the failure to designate 

such area is critical habitat would result 

in the extinction of the species. We may 

exclude an area from designated critical 

habitat based on economic impacts, 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact. 

Background 

We originally designated critical 

habitat for the Cape Sable seaside 

sparrow on August 11, 1977 (42 FR 

40685) and published a correction on 

September 22, 1977 (42 FR 47840). For 

a description of the sparrow, its habitat, 

and Federal Actions that occurred prior 

to our October 31, 2006, proposed rule 

to revise critical habitat (71 FR 63980), 

please refer to the original proposed rule 

published on July 14, 1976 (41 FR 

28978); the August 11, 1977, final rule 

(42 FR 40685); and the September 22, 

1977, correction (42 FR 47840). On 

October 31, 2006, we published a 

proposed rule to revise the critical 

habitat designated for the sparrow in 

Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, 

Florida (71 FR 63980). The proposed 

revision identifies seven units that 

encompass a total area of approximately 

156,350 acres (52,291 hectares), which 

represents a reduction in the acreage of 

designated critical habitat by 

approximately 40,910 acres (13,682 

hectares). In accordance with a 

settlement agreement, we will submit 

for publication in the Federal Register 

a final critical habitat designation for 

the Cape Sable seaside sparrow on or 

before October 24, 2007. 

Critical habitat is defined in section 2 

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. Federal agencies proposing 

actions affecting areas designated as 

critical habitat must consult with us on 

the effects of their proposed actions, 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Summary of Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We will continue to 

review any conservation or management 

plans that address the species within 

the areas we have proposed for revised 

designation, under to section 4(b)(2) and 

based on the definition of critical 

habitat provided in section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act. 

Based on the October 31, 2006, 

proposed rule (71 FR 63980), we 

prepared a draft economic analysis of 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation (see ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ for how to obtain a copy). 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of the 

sparrow, including costs associated with 

sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, which 

would include costs 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 the sparrow 

in critical habitat areas. The draft 

analysis considers both economic 

efficiency and distributional effects. 

Economic efficiency effects generally 

reflect ‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated 

with the commitment of resources 

required to accomplish species and 

habitat conservation and 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. Decision-makers can 

use this information to assess whether 

the effects of the revised designation 

might unduly burden a particular group 

or economic sector. The anticipated 

economic effects associated with the 

proposed revision of critical habitat are 

estimated based on activities that are 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable,’’ including, but 

not limited to, activities that are 

currently authorized, permitted, or 

funded, or for which proposed plans are 

currently available to the public. The 

analysis summarizes costs associated 

with past species conservation efforts 

for the sparrow and then forecasts 

projected future impacts for the 20-year 

period from 2007 (the year of the 

species’ final critical habitat 

designation) to 2026. Forecasts of 

economic conditions and other factors 

beyond the next 20 years would be 

speculative. 

The draft economic analysis is 

intended to quantify the economic 

impacts of all potential conservation 

efforts for the Cape Sable seaside 

sparrow. All dollar amounts include 

those costs coextensive with listing; 

some of these costs will likely be 

incurred under the existing critical 

habitat designation and other existing 

regulatory mechanisms regardless of 

whether critical habitat is revised. The 

analysis estimates potential future 

impacts associated with conservation 

efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed 

for designation to be $32.2 million over 

the next 20 years (undiscounted). 

However, because it is uncertain 

whether incremental conservation 

measures implemented for sparrow 

conservation will represent a constraint 

on overall water management activities 

due to future actions for the Everglades 

Restoration program, costs from this 

proposal associated with water 

management activities are calculated for 

only the next 5 years. 

The present value of these impacts is 

$26.9 million, using a discount rate of 

3 percent, or $22.2 million, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. The 

annualized value of these impacts is 

$1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 

percent, or $2.1 million, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. The majority 

(58 percent) of the total potential 

impacts estimated in this report are 

associated with potential species 

management efforts (such as surveying, 

monitoring, research, and exotic 

vegetation control). The remaining 

impacts are associated with potential 

water management changes to conserve 

the sparrow (33 percent), fire 

management (7 percent) and 

administrative costs of consultation (2 

percent). 

As stated earlier, we solicit data and 

comments from the public on this draft 

economic analysis, as well as on all 

aspects of our proposal. We may revise 

the proposal, or its supporting 

documents, to incorporate or address 

new information we receive during this 

comment period. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our October 31, 2006, proposed 

rule (71 FR 63980), we indicated that we 

would be deferring our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the 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. We 

now affirm the information contained in 

original proposed rule concerning 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 

(Federalism); E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
46192 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Reform) E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use); the Paperwork 

Reduction Act; the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 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. 12630 (Takings), 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, we do not anticipate 

that it will 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) did not 

formally review the proposed rule. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB, 

Circular A–4, September 17, 2003). 

Pursuant to Circular A–4, if the agency 

determines that a Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, 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. We believe that the evaluation 

of the inclusion or exclusion of 

particular areas, or combination thereof, 

in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 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 (small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In our 

proposal 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 revised 

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 revised critical habitat for 

the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, we considered the number of 

small entities affected within particular 

types of economic activities (such as 

residential and commercial 

development). 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 revised 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. 

In our draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small business entities 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the proposed revision of Cape 

Sable seaside sparrow critical habitat. 

The economic impacts of conservation 

efforts for the sparrow are expected to 

be borne primarily by State and Federal 

agencies, including the Service, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, National Park 

Service, South Florida Water 

Management District, and Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

None of these agencies is defined as a 

small entity by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). Consequently, 

the designation of revised critical 

habitat for the sparrow is not expected 

to impact small entities. Based on 

currently available information, the 

Service certifies that this action would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule would 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 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 46193 

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. Non-Federal 

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 the large 

entitlement programs listed above onto 

State governments. 

(b) As discussed in the draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

revised critical habitat for the Cape 

Sable seaside sparrow, we expect the 

impacts on nonprofits and small 

governments to be primarily those 

impacts related to changes in 

environmental and ecological 

conditions. It is likely that small 

governments involved with 

developments and infrastructure 

projects would be interested parties or 

involved with projects involving section 

7 consultations for the Cape Sable 

seaside sparrow within their 

jurisdictional areas. Any costs 

associated with this activity are likely to 

represent a small portion of a local 

government’s budget. Consequently, we 

do not believe that the designation of 

revised critical habitat for the Cape 

Sable seaside sparrow would 

significantly or uniquely affect these 

small governmental entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

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 revised critical habitat for the 

Cape Sable seaside sparrow in a takings 

implications assessment. The takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

this proposed revised designation of 

critical habitat for the Cape Sable 

seaside sparrow does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the South Florida Ecological Services 

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 10, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–4030 Filed 8–14–07; 12:45 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS