51732 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or 

position children who weigh 36 

kilograms (kg) or less. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.1 Test conditions. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) When using the test dummies 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts 

N, P, R, or T, performance tests under 

S6.1 are conducted at any ambient 

temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and 

at any relative humidity from 10 percent 

to 70 percent. 

* * * * * 

S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the 

dummy restrained in the child restraint 

system and apply the following force: 50 

N for a system tested with a newborn 

dummy; 90 N for a system tested with 

a 9-month-old dummy; 90 N for a 

system tested with a 12-month-old 

dummy; 200 N for a system tested with 

a 3-year-old dummy; 270 N for a system 

tested with a 6-year-old dummy; 350 N 

for a system tested with a weighted 6- 

year-old dummy; or 437 N for a system 

tested with a 10-year-old-dummy. The 

force is applied in the manner 

illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows: 

(a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an 

add-on child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the specified force by pulling 

the sling horizontally and parallel to the 

SORL of the standard seat assembly. For 

a car bed, apply the force by pulling the 

sling vertically. 

(b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a 

built-in child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the force by pulling the sling 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the specific vehicle shell or the specific 

vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply 

the force by pulling the sling vertically. 

S7.1.2 * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) A child restraint that is 

manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 

and before (two years after publication 

of a final rule; for illustration purposes, 

August 1, 2007), and that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 22.7 kg or by children in a 

specified height range that includes any 

children whose height is greater than 

1100 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 

572, subpart S dummy. 

(f) A child restraint that is 

manufactured after August 1, 2007, and 

that is recommended by its 

manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 

for use either by children in a specified 

mass range that includes any children 

having a mass greater than 22.7 kg or by 

children in a specified height range that 

includes any children whose height is 

greater than 1100 mm is tested with a 

10-year-old child dummy conforming to 

the applicable specifications in 49 CFR 

part 572, subpart T. 

* * * * * 

S9.1 Type of clothing. 

* * * * * 

(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart N), Hybrid III 6- 

year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 

572, Subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-yearold dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart 

T). When used in testing under this 

standard, the dummy specified in 49 

CFR part 572, subpart N, weighted and 

unweighted, is clothed in a light-weight 

cotton stretch short-sleeve shirt and 

above-the-knee pants, and size 121⁄2 M 

sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of 

dacron and cotton or nylon and a total 

mass of 0.453 kg. 

* * * * * 

S9.3.2 When using the test dummies 

conforming to Part 572 Subparts N, P, R, 

S, or T (10-year-old dummy), prepare 

the dummies as specified in this 

paragraph. Before being used in testing 

under this standard, dummies must be 

conditioned at any ambient temperature 

from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any 

relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 

percent, for at least 4 hours. 

* * * * * 

S10.2.2 Three-year-old, six-year-old 

test and ten-year-old test dummy. 

Position the test dummy according to 

the instructions for child positioning 

that the restraint manufacturer provided 

with the system in accordance with 

S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to 

the following: 

* * * * * 

Issued: August 24, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–17218 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AG16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Gila Chub as 

Endangered With Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment, 

reopening of public comment period, 

notice of public hearings, and updated 

legal descriptions for critical habitat 

units. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment for the proposal to list as 

endangered and designate critical 

habitat for the Gila chub (Gila 

intermedia) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We are also reopening the public 

comment period for the proposal to list 

the Gila chub as endangered with 

critical habitat to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

and request changes to the proposed 

listing and critical habitat designation, 

as well as the associated draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment. 

The draft economic analysis finds that 

costs associated with Gila chub 

conservation activities are forecast to 

range from $11.3 million to $28.1 

million in constant dollars over 20 years 

($0.8 million to $1.9 million annually). 

In addition, we are proposing corrected 

legal descriptions for the critical habitat 

units. Comments previously submitted 

on the August 9, 2002, proposed rule 

need not be resubmitted as they have 

been incorporated into the public record 

and will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. We will 

hold three public informational sessions 

and hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES

sections). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES

section) on or before September 30, 

2005, or at the public hearings. 

We will hold public informational 

sessions from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

followed by a public hearing from 6:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., on the following dates: 

1. September 13, 2005: Silver City, 

New Mexico. 

2. September 14, 2005: Thatcher, 

Arizona. 

3. September 15, 2005: Camp Verde, 

Arizona. 

ADDRESSES: Meetings. The public 

informational sessions and hearings will 

be held at the following locations: 

1. Silver City, NM: Flame Convention 

Center, 2800 Pinos Altos Road, Silver 

City, New Mexico. 

2. Thatcher, AZ: Eastern Arizona 

College Activity Center, Lee Little 

Theater (Information Session—Activity 

Center Quiet Lounge), 1014 North 

College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona. 

3. Camp Verde, AZ: Camp Verde 

Unified School District Multi-Use 

Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln 

Road, Camp Verde, Arizona. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51733 

For information on requesting 

reasonable accommodations to attend a 

session, see the ‘‘Public Comments 

Solicited’’ section below. 

Comments. If you wish to comment 

on the proposed rule, draft economic 

analysis, or draft environmental 

assessment, you may submit your 

comments and materials by any one of 

several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information by mail or handdelivery to the Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 

103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. 

2. Written comments may be sent by 

facsimile to (602) 242–2513. 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

gilachubcomments@fws.gov. For 

directions on how to submit electronic 

filing of comments, see the ‘‘Public 

Comments Solicited’’ section below. 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule, draft economic analysis, 

and draft environmental assessment by 

mail or by visiting our Web site at 

http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. You may 

review comments and materials 

received and review supporting 

documentation used in preparation of 

this proposed rule by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(address provided above). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(telephone, 602–242–0210; facsimile, 

602–242–2513; or electronic mail, 

steve_spangle@fws.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will 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, the draft economic 

analysis, and the draft environmental 

assessment. On the basis of public 

comment on the proposed rule analysis, 

the draft economic analysis and the 

environmental assessment, and the final 

economic analysis and environmental 

assessment, 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 not 

appropriate for exclusion. 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 

benefits of designation will outweigh 

any threats to the species resulting from 

designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

distribution of the Gila chub, the 

amount and distribution of the species’

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 area 

and their possible impacts on the 

species or proposed critical habitat; 

(4) Whether our approach to listing or 

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 concerns and 

comments; 

(5) Any foreseeable environmental 

impacts directly or indirectly resulting 

from the proposed designation of 

critical habitat; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic or other 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat or 

coextensively from the proposed listing, 

and in particular, any impacts on small 

entities or families; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs, and 

if not, what other costs should be 

included; 

(8) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the listing of the species or the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land- and wateruse controls that derive from the 

designation; 

(10) Whether the critical habitat 

designation will result in 

disproportionate economic impacts to 

specific areas that should be evaluated 

for possible exclusion from the final 

designation; and 

(11) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation or 

coextensively from the listing. 

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 Arizona Ecological Servies 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section 

above). 

All previous comments and 

information submitted during the initial 

comment period on the proposed rule 

need not be resubmitted. If you wish to 

comment, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning this 

proposal by any one of several methods 

(see ADDRESSES section). Our final 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Gila chub will take into consideration 

all comments and any additional 

information received during both 

comment periods. Please submit 

electronic comments in ASCII file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Please also include 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 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

at (602) 242–0210. 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations in order to attend and 

participate in a public hearing should 

contact Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

at the phone number or address listed 

in the ADDRESSES section as soon as 

possible. In order to allow sufficient 

time to process requests, please call no 

later than one week before the hearing. 

Information regarding this proposal is 

available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Background 

We proposed to list the Gila chub as 

endangered, and to designate 

approximately 211.9 stream miles (mi) 

(340.9 stream kilometers (km)) of critical 

habitat, which includes various stream 

segments and their associated riparian 

areas, including the stream at bankfull 

width and a 300-foot buffer on either 

side of the stream banks. The 

designation includes Federal, State, 

tribal, and private lands in Arizona and 

New Mexico. The proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51948), pursuant 

51734 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

to a settlement agreement resulting from 

litigation by the Center for Biological 

Diversity and others. The proposed rule 

also constituted our 12-month finding 

for the petition to list the Gila chub. 

Critical habitat identifies specific 

areas containing features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. If the 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

designation is finalized, section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act would require that Federal 

agencies ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

consider economic and other relevant 

impacts prior to making a final decision 

on what areas to designate as critical 

habitat. 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. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

and attempts to quantify the potential 

economic effects of efforts to protect the 

Gila chub and its habitat, collectively 

referred to as ‘‘Gila chub conservation 

activities,’’ in the proposed critical 

habitat designation, as well as the 

economic effects of protective measures 

taken as a result of the listing or other 

Federal, State, and local laws that aid 

habitat conservation in the areas 

proposed for designation. In the case of 

habitat conservation, these costs would 

reflect the costs associated with the 

commitment of resources to comply 

with habitat protection measures. The 

analysis also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed. 

Corrected Coordinates for Proposed 

Units of Critical Habitat 

Below we provide corrected legal 

descriptions for the Gila chub proposed 

critical habitat designation. Following 

the publication of the proposed rule on 

August 9, 2002, and in part through 

comments we received during the 

subsequent comment period, we 

discovered that some of the critical 

habitat units were incorrectly described. 

We have since corrected the 

descriptions to accurately reflect what 

we are considering for designation of 

critical habitat, and we provide the 

corrected descriptions for all critical 

habitat units below. Corrected 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

layers are available at http:// 

criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. The total 

corrected amount of critical habitat 

being proposed is approximately 211.9 

stream mi (340.9 stream km). Tables 1 

and 2 below provide approximate 

distances by major landowner type. 

All legal descriptions for New Mexico 

and Arizona are based on the Public 

Lands Survey System (PLSS). Within 

this system, all coordinates reported for 

New Mexico are in the New Mexico 

Principal Meridian (NMPM), while 

those in Arizona are in the Gila and Salt 

River Meridian (GSRM). Township has 

been abbreviated as ‘‘T,’’ Range as ‘‘R,’’

and section as ‘‘sec.’’ Where possible, 

the ending or starting points have been 

described to the nearest quarter-section, 

abbreviated as ‘‘1⁄4.’’ Cardinal directions 

are also abbreviated (N = North, S = 

South, W = West, and E = East). All 

mileage calculations were performed 

using GIS. 

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE CRITICAL HABITAT IN STREAM KILOMETERS AND MILES (7 RIVER UNITS) 

Land owner New Mexico 

km (mi) 

Arizona 

km (mi) 

Total 

km (mi) 

Federal ..................................................................................................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 171.1 (106.4) 190.0 (118.1) 

State ......................................................................................................................................... 0 17.1 (10.6) 17.1 (10.6) 

County ...................................................................................................................................... 0 17.2 (10.7) 17.2 (10.7) 

Private ...................................................................................................................................... 3.4 (2.1) 66.1 (41.1) 69.5 (43.2) 

Tribal ........................................................................................................................................ 0 47.1 (29.3) 47.1 (29.3) 

Total .................................................................................................................................. 22.3 (13.8) 318.6 (198.1) 340.9 (211.9) 

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE CRITICAL HABITAT IN STREAM KILOMETERS AND MILES (7 RIVER UNITS), BY INDIVIDUAL

LANDOWNERS

Land owner New Mexico Arizona Total 

Gila National Forest ..................................................................................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 0 18.9 (11.7) 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest ............................................................................................. 0 50.5 (31.4) 50.5 (31.4) 

Coconino National Forest ............................................................................................................ 0 16.9 (10.5) 16.9 (10.5) 

Coronado National Forest ........................................................................................................... 0 15.4 (9.6) 15.4 (9.6) 

Prescott National Forest .............................................................................................................. 0 21.0 (13.1) 21.0 (13.1) 

Tonto National Forest .................................................................................................................. 0 7.4 (4.6) 7.4 (4.6) 

SUBTOTAL ........................................................................................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 111.2 (69.2) 130.1 (80.9) 

BLM—Phoenix District ................................................................................................................. 0 7.7 (4.8) 7.7 (4.8) 

BLM—Safford District .................................................................................................................. 0 27.7 (17.2) 27.7 (17.2) 

BLM—Tucson District .................................................................................................................. 0 24.5 (15.2) 24.5 (15.2) 

SUBTOTAL ........................................................................................................................... 0 59.9 (37.2) 59.9 (37.2) 

TOTAL ........................................................................................................................... 18.9 (11.7) 171.1 (106.4) 190.0 (118.1) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51735 

Required Determinations—Amended 

This revised proposed rule affirms the 

information contained in the August 9, 

2002, proposed rule (67 FR 51948) 

concerning Executive Orders 13132 and 

12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; 

the National Environmental Policy Act; 

and the President’s memorandum of 

April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951). Based on the draft economic 

analysis, we are amending our required 

determinations, as provided below, 

concerning Executive Order 12866 and 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive 

Orders 13211 and 12630; and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule because it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues. However, based on our 

draft economic analysis, it is not 

anticipated that the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Gila chub would result in 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 

economic analysis. 

Further, Executive Order 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, then 

the agency will need to consider 

alternative regulatory approaches. Since 

the determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

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 a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 

802(2)) (SBREFA), 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. 

Based upon our draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation, we provide 

our factual basis for determining that 

this rule will not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

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 this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Gila chub would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities (e.g., water management and 

use, livestock grazing, San Carlos 

Apache Tribal activities, residential and 

related development, Gila chub-specific 

management activities, recreation 

activities, fire management activities, 

mining, and transportation). 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 if their 

activities may affect designated critical 

habitat. Consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

Our economic analysis of this 

proposed designation evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities and small governments 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the proposed listing of this 

species and proposed designation of its 

critical habitat. We evaluated small 

business entities in nine categories: 

water management and use, livestock 

grazing activities, San Carlos Apache 

Tribal activities, residential and related 

development, Gila chub-specific 

management activities, recreation 

activities, fire management activities, 

mining, and transportation. Based on 

our analysis, impacts are anticipated to 

occur in water management, livestock 

grazing, and tribal enterprises of the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe. The following is a 

summary of the information contained 

in Appendix B of the draft economic 

analysis: 

(a) Water Management. Two water 

supply entities could potentially be 

impacted by conservation activities 

related to water supply for the Gila 

chub, both of which are small entities: 

the City of Safford, Arizona, and Vail 

Water Company. The Vail Water 

Company is considered a small business 

because its annual revenues are $99,000. 

The potential restriction to this 

company relates to its ability to sell 

water from one of its seven wells. This 

well is not currently used by Vail Water 

Company for domestic supply due to 

high levels of certain constituents. The 

company could begin pumping water 

from the well for non-potable uses or for 

51736 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

potable uses with some treatment. The 

economic analysis estimates that the 

total annualized replacement costs to 

the company if it is not able to pump 

water from the well is $73,000 and 

$171,000 (discounted at 3 and 7 percent, 

over 20 years; using high-end estimates 

of water replacement needs). If the Vail 

Water Company’s ability to sell nonpotable water from this well is 

restricted, we find that it would be a 

significant effect on the Company. 

The potential restriction to the City of 

Safford as a result of Gila chub 

conservation measures is related to its 

ability to make use of its water source 

in Bonita Creek. The annualized water 

replacement cost to the City of Safford 

is $287,000 and $669,000 (discounted at 

3 and 7 percent, over 20 years). In the 

case of Safford, data on the City’s 

current overall budget is unknown. 

However, annualized impacts could 

represent approximately between 2.3 

and 5.3 percent of annual revenues to 

the City of Safford’s utilities 

department. If the City is required to 

locate a replacement source of water, we 

find that would be a significant effect on 

the City. A section 7 consultation is 

currently being developed with the 

Bureau of Reclamation to expand the 

City’s use of the infiltration gallery, 

which may allow the City to continue to 

withdraw water from the Creek. 

However, the consultation is in its early 

stages and the outcome is unknown. 

(b) Livestock Grazing Activities. 

Ranching operations are anticipated to 

be impacted by conservation activities 

for the Gila chub. Approximately 16 

ranching operations may be impacted 

annually. Annual costs to each of these 

16 ranching operations may be between 

$1,400 and $11,700. Average revenues 

of a ranch in the region of the proposed 

critical habitat designation are $144,000. 

These potential losses represent 

between 1 and 8 percent of each ranch’s 

estimated average revenues. Exhibit B–

2 in the draft economic analysis 

presents the average revenues of ranches 

by county. Of the 118 beef cattle 

ranching and farming operations 

(NAICS 112111) in Arizona counties 

with proposed Gila chub critical habitat, 

92 percent are considered small 

businesses. Therefore, 15 small ranching 

operations (92 percent of 16 operations) 

may experience a reduction in revenues 

of between 1 and 8 percent annually. 

The extent to which these impacts are 

significant to any of these ranching 

operations will depend on the 

individual financial conditions of the 

ranch. 

(c) Tribal Enterprises. As explained in 

Appendix B of the draft economic 

analysis, Tribal governments are not 

considered small governments under 

RFA/SBREFA but rather as independent 

sovereigns. However, tribal enterprises 

can be considered small entities under 

the RFA/SFREFA. For the purpose of 

this analysis we find that approximately 

three livestock associations and one 

timber operation are considered to be 

small entities. Quantified impacts to 

tribal livestock grazing activities are 

estimated to range from $22,000 to 

$306,000 annually using a seven percent 

discount rate ($18,000 to $274,000 

discounted at three percent), or between 

one percent and 57 percent of annual 

revenues to each of the three livestock 

associations. Quantified impacts of 

reduced lumber production are 

estimated to be approximately $15,000 

annually. These impacts could be borne 

by a Tribally-owned timber mill, a 

private leasee of the mill, and/or a small 

logging contractor. There are 25 forestry 

and logging companies in Arizona. 

Based on these data, we have 

determined that this proposed 

designation would not affect a 

substantial number of small businesses 

involved in or affected by water 

management activities, timber harvest, 

or livestock grazing. As such, we are 

certifying that this proposed designation 

of critical habitat would not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Please refer to Appendix B of our draft 

economic analysis of this designation 

for a more detailed discussion of 

potential economic impacts to small 

business entities. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order (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 rule is considered a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due 

to its potentially raising novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Appendix B of the 

draft economic analysis provides a 

discussion and analysis of this 

determination. The Office of 

Management and Budget 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, energy-related impacts 

associated with Gila chub conservation 

activities within proposed critical 

habitat are not expected. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

the Service makes 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)–‘‘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; AFDC 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51737 

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 on to 

State governments. 

(b) The economic analysis discusses 

potential impacts of critical habitat 

designation for the Gila chub on water 

management activities, livestock 

grazing, Tribes, residential and 

commercial development activities, 

recreation activities, fire management 

activities, mining, and transportation 

activities. The analysis estimates that 

annual costs of the rule could range 

from $11.3 million to $28.1 million in 

constant dollars over 20 years ($0.8 

million to $1.9 million annually). 

Impacts are largely anticipated to affect 

water operators and Federal and State 

agencies, with some effects on livestock 

grazing operations. Impacts on small 

governments are not anticipated, or they 

are anticipated to be passed through to 

consumers. For example, costs to water 

operations would be expected to be 

passed on to consumers in the form of 

price changes. Consequently, for the 

reasons discussed above, we do not 

believe that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Gila chub will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of proposing critical 

habitat for the Gila chub in a takings 

implications assessment. The takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

this proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Gila chub does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Rule Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. As proposed on August 9, 2002, at 

67 FR 51948, amend § 17.11(h) by 

adding Gila chub, in alphabetical order 

under ‘‘FISHES’’, to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

Chub, Gila ................ Gila intermedia ....... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), 

Mexico.

Entire ...................... E NA 17.95(e) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. Critical habitat for the Gila chub 

(Gila intermedia) in § 17.95 (e), which 

was proposed to be added on August 9, 

2002, at 67 FR 51948, is proposed to be 

amended by revising the critical habitat 

unit descriptions as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(e) Fishes. 

* * * * * 

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) 

1. Critical habitat for the Gila chub in 

Arizona and New Mexico is depicted on 

the following overview map and 

described in detail following the map. 

* * * * * 

Upper Gila River Area 1 

a. Turkey Creek—13.7 km (8.5 mi) of 

creek extending from the edge of the 

Gila Wilderness boundary at T14S, 

R16W, sec. 15 NW1⁄4 and continuing 

upstream to T13S, R15W, sec. 30 NE1⁄4. 

Land ownership: Gila National Forest. 

b. Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek—

39.2 km (24.4 mi) of creek extending 

from its confluence with an unnamed 

tributary at T1N, R28E, sec. 31 SW1⁄4

upstream to the headwaters of East 

Eagle Creek just south of Highway 191 

in T3N, R29E, sec. 28 SE1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest and private. 

c. Harden Cienega Creek—22.6 km 

(14.0 mi) of creek extending from its 

confluence with the San Francisco in 

GSRM T3S, R31E, sec. 3 SE1⁄4

continuing upstream to the headwaters 

in NMPM T14S R21W sec. 6 NE1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest, Gila National Forest, and private. 

d. Dix Creek—Portions of the Creek 

beginning 1.0 mi upstream from its 

confluence with the San Francisco River 

at a natural rock barrier in T3S, R31E, 

sec. 9 NE1⁄4 continuing upstream for 0.9 

km (0.6 mi.) to the confluence of the 

right and left forks of Dix Creek in T3S, 

R31E, sec. 9 center. Left Fork Dix Creek 

continues upstream 2.0 km (1.24 mi) to 

T3S, R31E, section 15 NW1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest. Right Fork Dix Creek continues 

upstream 4.8 km (3.0 mi) to T3S, R31E, 

section 20 SE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. 

* * * * * 

Middle Gila River Area 2 

a. Mineral Creek—14.4 km (9.0 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with Devil’s Canyon in T2S, R13E, 

section 35 NW1⁄4 continuing upstream 

to its headwaters in T2S, R14E, sec. 15 

center at the confluence of Mineral 

Creek and an unknown drainage. Land 

ownership: Tonto National Forest, State 

Lands, and private. 

b. Blue River—40.5 km (25.2 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

51738 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

with the San Carlos River in T1N R19E, 

sec. 20 on the border of section 20 and 

29, continuing upstream to T3N, R20E, 

sec. 21 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: San 

Carlos Apache Reservation. 

c. Bonita Creek—30.6 km (19.0 mi) of 

Creek extending from T6S, R28E, sec. 21 

SE1⁄4 continuing upstream to T4S, R27E, 

sec. 18 SW1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau 

of Land Management, Tribal, and 

private. 

* * * * * 

Babocomari River Area 3 

a. O’Donnell Canyon—10.0 km (6.2 

mi) of creek extending from its 

confluence with Turkey Creek at T21S, 

R18E, sec. 22 SE1⁄4 upstream to the 

confluences of Western, Middle, and 

Pauline Canyons in T22S, R18E, sec. 17 

NE1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management, Coronado National Forest, 

and private. 

b. Turkey Creek—6.3 km (3.9 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with O’Donnell Canyon in T21S, R18E, 

sec. 22 SE1⁄4 upstream to where Turkey 

Creek crosses AZ Highway 83 in T22S, 

R18E, sec. 9 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Coronado National Forest and private. 

c. Post Canyon—4.6 km (2.8 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with O’Donnell Canyon in T21S, R18E, 

sec. 22 SE1⁄4 upstream to Welch Spring 

at T21S, R18E, sec. 29 NW1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Coronado National Forest, 

Bureau of Land Management, and 

private. 

* * * * * 

Lower San Pedro River Area 4 

a. Bass Canyon—5.5 km (3.4 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with Hot Springs Canyon in T12S, 

R20E, sec. 36 NE1⁄4 upstream to the 

confluence with Pine Canyon in T12S, 

R21E, sec. 20 SW1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management and 

private. 

b. Hot Springs Canyon—10.5 km (6.5 

mi) of creek extending from T13S R20E, 

sec. 5 NW1⁄4 continuing upstream to its 

confluence with Bass Canyon in T12S, 

R20E, sec. 36 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management, State 

Lands, private (The Nature 

Conservancy). 

c. Redfield Canyon—11.6 km (7.2 mi) 

of creek extending from the western 

boundary of T11S, R19E, section 35 

upstream to its confluence with 

Sycamore Canyon in T11S, R20E, sec. 

20 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau of 

Land Management, State Lands, and 

private. 

* * * * * 

Lower Santa Cruz River Area 5 

a. Cienega Creek—(Two Segments) 

First segment includes 17.2 km (10.7 

mi) of creek extending from where 

Cienega Creek becomes Pantano Wash 

in T16S, R16E, sec. 10, S1⁄2 to where it 

crosses I–10 at T17S, R17E, sec. 1 

NW1⁄4. Land ownership: County. 

Second segment includes 13.6 km (8.4 

mi) of creek extending from T18S, R18E, 

sec. 6 S1⁄2 to its confluence with an 

unnamed stream at T19S, R17E, sec. 3 

SW1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management. 

b. Mattie Canyon—4.0 km (2.5 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with Cienega Creek in T18S, R17E, sec. 

23 NE1⁄4 upstream to the Bureau of Land 

Management Boundary in T18S, R17E, 

sec. 25 SW1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau 

of Land Management. 

c. Empire Gulch—5.2 km (3.2 mi) of 

creek extending from its confluence 

with Cienega Creek in T19S, R17E, sec. 

3 SE1⁄4 continuing upstream to T19S, 

R17E, sec. 16 NW1⁄4 on the western 

boundary of section 16. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land Management 

and State. 

d. Sabino Canyon—11.1 km (6.9 mi) 

of creek extending from the southern 

boundary of the Coronado National 

Forest in T13S, R15E, sec. 9 SE1⁄4

upstream to its confluence with the 

West Fork of Sabino Canyon in T12S, 

R15E, sec. 22 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Coronado National Forest. 

* * * * * 

Verde River Area 6 

a. Walker Creek—7.6 km (4.7 mi) of 

creek extending from Prescott National 

Forest Road 618 in T15N, R6E, sec. 33 

SW1⁄4 upstream to its confluence with 

Spring Creek in T14N, R6E, sec. 1, SE1⁄4. 

Land ownership: Coconino National 

Forest and private lands. 

b. Red Tank Draw—11.1 km (6.9 mi) 

of creek extending from the National 

Park Service boundary just upstream of 

its confluence with Wet Beaver Creek in 

T15N, R6E, sec. 31 NE1⁄4 upstream to 

the confluence of Mullican and Rarick 

canyons in T15N, R6E, sec. 2 NW1⁄4. 

Land ownership: Coconino National 

Forest and private. 

c. Spring Creek—5.7 km (3.6 mi) of 

creek extending from T16N, R4E, sec. 27 

SE1⁄4 at the boundary of Forest Service 

land and continuing upstream to the 

Arizona Highway 89A crossing in T16N, 

R4E, sec. 16 SE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Coconino National Forest, State Lands, 

and private. 

d. Williamson Valley Wash—7.2 km 

(4.4 mi) of creek extending from the 

gauging station in T17N, R3W, sec. 7 

SE1⁄4 upstream to the crossing of the 

Williamson Valley Road in T17N, R4W, 

sec. 36 NE1⁄4. Land ownership: private. 

* * * * * 

Agua Fria River Area 7 

a. Little Sycamore Creek—4.7 km (2.9 

mi) of creek extending from its 

confluence with Sycamore Creek in 

T11N, R4E, sec. 6 SW1⁄4 upstream to 

T11N, R4E, sec. 4 NE1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Prescott National Forest and 

private. 

b. Sycamore Creek—18.3 km (11.4 mi) 

of creek extending from its confluence 

with Little Sycamore Creek at T11N, 

R4E, sec. 6 SW1⁄4 upstream to Nelson 

Place Spring in T11N, R5E, sec. 21 

NE1⁄4. Land ownership: Prescott 

National Forest and private. 

c. Indian Creek—8.4 km (5.2 mi) of 

creek extending from T11N, R3E, sec. 35 

NE1⁄4 to Upper Water Springs in T11N, 

R4E, sec. 16 SE1⁄4. Land ownership: 

Bureau of Land Management, Prescott 

National Forest, and private. 

d. Silver Creek—8.5 km (5.3 mi) of 

creek extending from T10N, R3E, sec. 10 

SE1⁄4 continuing upstream to the spring 

in T10N, R4E, Sec. 4 SW1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Tonto National Forest and 

Bureau of Land Management. 

e. Larry Creek—Portions of the creek 

from an unnamed tributary and 

continuing upstream 0.7 km (0.4 mi) to 

the confluence of two adjoining 

unnamed tributaries, entirely within 

T9N, R3E, sec. 9 NW1⁄4. Land 

ownership: Bureau of Land 

Management. 

f. Lousy Canyon—Portions of the 

creek from the confluence of an 

unnamed tributary upstream to the fork 

with an unnamed tributary 

approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) 

upstream, all entirely within T9N, R3E, 

sec. 5 NW1⁄4. Land ownership: Bureau of 

Land Management. 

* * * * * 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

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

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Paul Hoffman, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–17450 Filed 8–29–05; 2:55 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P