Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 58361 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(3) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 28, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20077 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[R01–OAR–2005–MA–0002; FRL–7981–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Massachusetts; Negative 

Declaration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

Sections 111(d) and 129 negative 

declaration submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MADEP) on 

August 23, 2005. This negative 

declaration adequately certifies that 

there are no existing hospital/medical/ 

infectious waste incinerators (HMIWIs) 

located within the boundaries of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

DATES: EPA must receive comments in 

writing by November 7, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–MA–0002 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: brown.dan@epa.gov. 

4. Fax: (617) 918–0048. 

5. Mail: ‘‘RME ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–MA–0002’’, Daniel Brown, Chief, 

Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100 (CAP), Boston, Massachusetts 

02114–2023. 

6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Daniel Brown, Chief, 

Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100 (CAP), Boston, Massachusetts 

02114–2023. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

Copies of documents relating to this 

proposed rule are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the following locations. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the appropriate office 

at least 24 hours before the day of the 

visit. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Suite 

1100 (CAP), One Congress Street, 

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023. 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, Business 

Compliance Division, One Winter 

Street, Boston, Massachusetts 04333–

0017, (617) 292–5500. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Courcier, Office of Ecosystem Protection 

(CAP), EPA–New England, Region 1, 

Boston, Massachusetts 02203, telephone 

number (617) 918–1659, fax number 

(617) 918–0659, e-mail 

courcier.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the 

Massachusetts Negative Declaration 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in 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. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment 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 the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 05–20107 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT75 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 

(Thread-Leaved Brodiaea) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period and notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. We are reopening the comment 

period to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the proposed rule and the associated 

draft economic analysis. Comments 

previously submitted on this proposed 

rule need not be resubmitted as they 

have already been incorporated into the 

public record and will be fully 

considered in our final determination. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

and information until October 20, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to Jim Bartel, Field 

Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, CA 92011; 

58362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

above address, or fax your comments to 

760/431–9624; or 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw1cfwo_brfi@fws.gov. For directions on 

how to submit electronic comments, see 

the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’

section. In the event that our Internet 

connection is not functional, please 

submit your comments by the alternate 

methods mentioned above. 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule and draft economic 

analysis by mail or by visiting our Web 

site at http://carlsbad.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 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

(address provided above). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, at the above address 

(telephone 760/431–9440; facsimile 

760/431–9624). 

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 December 8, 2004 (69 FR 

71284), 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 any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat as provided by section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) (Act), including whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Brodiaea 

filifolia and its habitat, and which 

habitat features and geographic areas are 

essential to the conservation of this 

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) Information on how many of the 

State and local environmental 

protection measures referenced in the 

draft economic analysis were adopted 

largely as a result of the listing of 

Brodiaea filifolia, and how many were 

either already in place or enacted for 

other reasons; 

(5) Any foreseeable economic, 

environmental, or other impacts 

resulting from the proposed designation 

or coextensively from other related 

factors; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

environmental, or other benefits 

resulting from the proposed designation, 

or coextensive from other related 

factors; 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis identifies all State and local 

costs attributable to the proposed 

critical habitat designation, and 

information on any costs that have been 

inadvertently overlooked; 

(8) 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; 

(9) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with land use 

controls that derive from the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(10) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation, in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; 

(11) Whether the designation would 

result in disproportionate economic 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion under 

4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 

designation; 

(12) Whether it is appropriate that the 

analysis does not include the costs of 

project modification that are the result 

of informal consultation only; 

(13) Whether there is information 

about areas that could be used as 

substitutes for the economic activities 

planned in critical habitat areas that 

would offset the costs and allow for the 

conservation of critical habitat areas; 

(14) How our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified to provide for greater public 

participation and understanding, or to 

assist us in accommodating public 

concern and comments; and 

(15) Whether we should consider the 

exclusion of critical habitat within the 

municipalities that have a 

disproportionate number of small 

entities that could potentially be 

impacted, such as San Dimas, San Juan 

Capistrano, or San Bernardino. 

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 the 

draft economic analysis and the 

proposed rule by any one of several 

methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our 

final determination regarding 

designation of critical habitat for 

Brodiaea filifolia will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information received during 

both comment periods. On the basis of 

public comment on this analysis and on 

the critical habitat proposal, and on 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. 

Please submit electronic comments in 

an ASCII file and avoid the use of any 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Also, please include ‘‘Attn: 

Brodiaea filifolia’’ and your name and 

return address in your e-mail message 

regarding the Brodiaea filifolia proposed 

rule or the draft economic analysis. If 

you do not receive a confirmation from 

the system that we have received your 

e-mail message, please submit your 

comments in writing using one of the 

alternate methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

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 address, which 

we will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold 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 comments. 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, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposal to 

designate critical habitat, will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office at the address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed 

critical habitat rule for Brodiaea filifolia 

and the draft economic analysis are also 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/ 

BRFI.htm. In the event that our internet 

connection is not functional, please 

obtain copies of documents directly 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 58363 

from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

Background 

On December 8, 2004, we published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 71284) to designate critical 

habitat for Brodiaea filifolia pursuant to 

the Act. We proposed to designate a 

total of approximately 4,690 acres (ac) 

(1,898 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat in 

Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, 

and San Diego counties, California. The 

first comment period for the Brodiaea 

filifolia proposed critical habitat rule 

closed on February 7, 2005. For more 

information on this species, refer to the 

final rule listing this species as 

threatened, published in the Federal 

Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 

54975). 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as the specific areas within 

the geographic 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 geographic 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. 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat on 

the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact to national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

have prepared a draft economic analysis 

of the December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284), 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Brodiaea filifolia. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of Brodiaea 

filifolia, including costs associated with 

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

including those 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 Brodiaea 

filifolia in habitat areas with features 

essential to the conservation of this 

taxon. The analysis considers both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. In the case of habitat 

conservation, efficiency effects generally 

reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’

associated with the commitment of 

resources to comply with habitat 

protection measures (e.g., lost economic 

opportunities associated with 

restrictions on land use). This analysis 

also addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on small entities and the 

energy industry. This information can 

be used by decision-makers to assess 

whether the effects of the designation 

might unduly burden a particular group 

or economic sector. Finally, this 

analysis looks retrospectively at costs 

that have been incurred since the date 

the species was listed as an endangered 

species and considers those costs that 

may occur in the 20 years following the 

designation of critical habitat. 

This analysis determined that costs 

involving conservation measures for 

Brodiaea filifolia would be incurred for 

activities involving residential, 

industrial, and commercial 

development; water supply; flood 

control; transportation; agriculture; the 

development of HCPs; and the 

management of military bases, other 

Federal lands, and other public or 

conservation lands. 

Pre-designation costs include those 

Brodiaea filifolia-related conservation 

activities associated with sections 4, 7, 

and 10 of the Act that have accrued 

since the time that Brodiaea filifolia was 

listed as threatened (63 FR 54975; 

October 13, 1998), but prior to the final 

designation of critical habitat. The total 

pre-designation costs associated with 

critical habitat proposed for inclusion 

are estimated to be $2.9 million to $3.0 

million on a present value basis and 

$2.4 to $2.5 million expressed in 

undiscounted dollars. Pre-designation 

costs associated with areas excluded 

from the proposed designation are 

estimated to be $110,000 to $180,000 on 

a present value basis and $100,000 to 

$150,000 expressed in undiscounted 

dollars. 

Post-designation effects would 

include likely future costs associated 

with Brodiaea filifolia conservation 

efforts in the 20-year period following 

the final designation of critical habitat 

in December 2005 (effectively 2005 

through 2024). If critical habitat is 

designated as proposed, total costs are 

estimated to be $12.2 million to $14.7 

million on a present value basis and 

$12.2 to $16.9 million expressed in 

undiscounted dollars (an annualized 

cost of $0.6 to $0.8 million annually). 

However, if all habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of the 

taxon were designated critical habitat in 

a final rule, total costs would be 

expected to range between $24.5 and 

$43.6 million over the next 20 years (an 

annualized cost of $1.2 to $2.2 million). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues. However, because the 

draft economic analysis indicates the 

potential economic impact associated 

with a designation of all habitat with 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species would total no more than 

$2.2 million per year, we do not 

anticipate that this rule would have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the time line 

for publication in the Federal Register, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) did not formally review the 

proposed rule. 

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 outweighs 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. 

58364 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 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 this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Brodiaea filifolia would affect a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered the number of small entities 

affected within particular types of 

economic activities (e.g., residential, 

industrial, 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 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 analysis determined that costs 

involving conservation measures for 

Brodiaea filifolia would be incurred for 

activities involving residential, 

industrial, and commercial 

development; water supply; flood 

control; transportation; agriculture; the 

development of HCPs; and the 

management of military bases, other 

Federal lands, and other public or 

conservation lands. 

In our economic analysis of this 

proposed designation, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of this species and proposed 

designation of its critical habitat. 

Critical habitat designation is expected 

to result in additional costs to real estate 

development projects due to mitigation 

and other conservation costs that may 

be required. The affected land is located 

within Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 

Orange, Riverside, and San Diego 

counties and under private ownership 

by individuals who will either 

undertake a development project on 

their own or sell the land to developers 

for development. For businesses 

involved with land development, the 

relevant threshold for ‘‘small’’ is annual 

revenues of $6 million or less. The 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 237210 is 

comprised of establishments primarily 

engaged in servicing land (e.g., 

excavation, installing roads and 

utilities) and subdividing real property 

into lots for subsequent sale to builders. 

Land subdivision precedes actual 

construction, and typically includes 

residential properties, but may also 

include industrial and commercial 

properties. 

The Draft Economic Analysis (See 

Section 3.2.1) estimates that 390 acres 

within proposed critical habitat are 

projected to be developed over the next 

20 years. The analysis assumes that as 

a result of Brodiaea filifolia 

conservation activities, 95 percent of the 

acres are conserved, and the plant is 

salvaged from the remaining five 

percent. As a result, landowners of 100 

percent of these acres bear costs of B. 

filifolia conservation activities. 

To estimate the number of 

landowners potentially impacted by 

Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities, 

the analysis estimates the average parcel 

size within essential habitat units in 

each county that contains essential 

habitat and compares it to the estimate 

of affected acres in these areas. At the 

aggregate county level, in units 

proposed for inclusion, one individual 

may be impacted in Los Angeles 

County, one individual may be 

impacted in San Bernardino County, 22 

individuals may be impacted in Orange 

County, and 27 individuals may be 

impacted in San Diego County. Note 

that this estimate may be understated if 

habitat partially overlaps several parcels 

or overstated if one person owns more 

than one parcel with B. filifolia. 

The loss in land value experienced by 

an individual landowner will depend 

on how much of a parcel is inhabited by 

Brodiaea filifolia, the extent to which 

development activities can be planned 

around sensitive areas, and the 

existence of alternative uses of the 

property that do not threaten the plant 

or its habitat. For example, if B. filifolia 

exists on only a small portion of the 

parcel that can be incorporated into 

existing open space requirements, then 

a small percentage of the land value is 

lost. However, if B. filifolia is found 

throughout the parcel, most or all of 

development value of that parcel may be 

lost. In such a circumstance, the parcel 

may continue to derive value from 

other, nondevelopment-oriented uses. 

Effects on Homebuyers and Small 

Construction Firms 

The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) 

(See Section 3.2.2) estimates a potential 

shift in the supply of housing resulting 

from increased land scarcity. Scenario 

Two assumes that as a result of on-site 

conservation requirements, less land is 

available for development, and therefore 

fewer new homes are built. Under this 

scenario, small construction firms may 

be indirectly affected. This analysis uses 

a methodology used by Charles River 

Associates (CRA) to estimate the 

potential impact to small construction 

firms. The analysis uses the following 

steps to estimate the number of firms 

potentially affected: 

(1) The analysis estimates the number 

of new homes typically built by a small 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 58365 

construction firm in one year. Average 

annual revenues for a small 

construction firm are $694,000. Using 

the average construction costs for a 

single family home of $236,000 obtained 

from CRA’s vernal pool analysis, a small 

firm is assumed to build on average 

three houses a year ($694,000/$236,000 

= 2.9). 

(2) Next, the analysis estimates the 

number of homes that would have been 

built by small businesses in the absence 

of Brodiaea filifolia conservation efforts. 

As described in Section 3.2.2 of the 

DEA, the analysis predicts 316 homes 

will not be built in cities with habitat 

proposed for designation (summarized 

in Exhibit A–2 of the DEA). In an 

analysis of building permits in 

Sacramento County conducted by CRA, 

researchers determined that 22 percent 

of permits for single family dwellings 

were requested by small businesses. 

This analysis assumes that a similar 

proportion of new home construction 

activity is conducted by small 

construction firms in the five Southern 

California counties included in this 

analysis. As shown in Exhibit A–2 of 

the DEA, multiplying 22 percent by the 

number of homes not built in each 

county provides an estimate of lost 

home construction for small firms. 

(3) Next, using the number of homes 

not built by small firms, the analysis 

estimates the number of small 

businesses affected. Results of this 

calculation are presented in Exhibit A–

2. At the high-end, assuming that each 

lost house would have been built by a 

separate firm, the number of firms 

potentially affected is equal to the 

number of lost homes. For a low-end 

estimate, the number of houses not built 

is divided by the average number of 

houses built per year by small firms 

(three houses). In summary, in a given 

municipality containing proposed 

critical habitat, between one and 18 

small construction firms may be affected 

annually by Brodiaea filifolia 

conservation activities. In Hemet, 

Moreno Valley, and Perris, where 

habitat is excluded from proposed 

critical habitat, approximately nine to 

82 small firms could be affected if 

habitat were designated. The impact to 

affected small businesses is estimated to 

be between one-third and all of their 

revenues for the year, depending on the 

estimate of the number of businesses 

affected. Note that the impact to small 

construction firms may be overstated. 

As discussed in Section 3 of the DEA, 

the analysis of lost housing units is 

partial equilibrium in nature (e.g., does 

not consider substitution of displaced 

development to other nearby areas), 

which is consistent with the best 

currently available empirical 

information. If, instead, homes not built 

in these municipalities are constructed 

in neighboring communities unaffected 

by brodiaea conservation activities, the 

impact to small construction firms is 

likely to be less than presented in 

Exhibit A–2. As a result, impacts to 

these firms are more likely overstated 

than understated in this analysis. 

Based on these data, we have 

determined that this proposed 

designation would not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, in 

particular to land developers or farmers 

in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, 

Riverside, and San Diego counties. We 

may also exclude areas from the final 

designation if it is determined that these 

localized areas have an impact to a 

substantial number of businesses and a 

significant proportion of their annual 

revenues. 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 A 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 not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Please refer to Appendix A of our draft 

economic analysis of this proposed 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential effects on energy 

supply. 

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, 

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; 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, permits, or 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 on to 

State governments. 

(b) The United States Forest Service 

manages Cleveland National Forest 

(units 5a and 5b); Orange County’s 

Department of Harbors, Beaches and 

Parks manages Aliso-Wood Canyon 

Regional Park (unit 3) and Casper’s 

Regional Park (unit 4); and the Glendora 

58366 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Community Conservancy manages the 

Conservancy (unit 1a) of the same name. 

With the exception of the Glendora 

Community Conservancy, these entities 

exceed the threshold established for 

small governments (service population 

of 50,000 or less). Therefore, the 

Glendora Community Conservancy is 

the only land manager considered in 

this screening analysis. 

The DEA (See Section 6) estimates 

potential costs to public and private 

land management entities. Of the 

entities analyzed, the Glendora 

Community Conservancy is the only 

small entity. This section estimates 

potential impacts of Brodiaea filifolia 

conservation activities to the 

Conservancy. 

The Conservancy’s overall annual 

budget ranges from $15,000 to $30,000 

and includes such elements as 

insurance, discounted land taxes, weed 

abatement, and trail maintenance. The 

analysis estimates that potential future 

costs associated with Brodiaea filifolia 

conservation activities at the 

Conservancy may range from $1,600 to 

$2,600 on an annualized basis 

(assuming a seven percent discount 

rate). These costs represent 

approximately 11 percent to 17 percent 

of annual expenditures assuming the 

low-end estimate of the annual budget 

($15,000) and 5 percent to 9 percent 

assuming the high-end estimate 

($30,000). Considering that the Glendora 

Community Conservancy is in the 

business of conservation, this is not an 

unexpected expenditure for the 

Conservancy. Consequently, we do not 

believe that the designation of critical 

habitat for B. filifolia will significantly 

or uniquely affect any small 

governmental entity addressed in the 

DEA. 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 Brodiaea filifolia. 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 do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. In conclusion, 

the designation of critical habitat for B. 

filifolia does not pose significant takings 

implications. 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

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

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–20050 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 050927248–5248–01; I.D. 

090805C] 

RIN 0648–AT74 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Commercial Shark 

Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish the 2006 first trimester season 

quotas for large coastal sharks (LCS) and 

small coastal sharks (SCS) based on 

over- and underharvests from the 2005 

first trimester season. In addition, this 

rule proposes the opening and closing 

dates for the LCS fishery based on 

adjustments to the trimester quotas. The 

intended effect of these proposed 

actions is to provide advance notice of 

quotas and season dates for the Atlantic 

commercial shark fishery. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until November 7, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule may be submitted to 

Chris Rilling, Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division via: 

• E-mail: SF1.090805C@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark 

the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments 

on Proposed Rule for 1st Trimester 

Season Lengths and Quotas.’’

• Fax: 301–713–1917. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following identifier: I.D. 

090805C. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Rilling or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by 

phone: 301–713–2347 or by fax: 301–

713–1917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Opening and Closing Dates 

and Quotas 

Proposed opening and closing dates 

and quotas for the 2006 first trimester 

season by region are provided in Table 

1. 

TABLE 1 — PROPOSED OPENING AND CLOSING DATES AND QUOTAS

Species Group Region Opening Date Closing Date Quota 

Large Coastal Sharks Gulf of Mexico January 1, 2006 April 15, 2006 11:30 

p.m. local time 

222.8 mt dw (491,185 

lb dw) 

South Atlantic March 15, 2006 11:30 

p.m. local time 

141.3 mt dw (311,510 

lb dw) 

North Atlantic April 30, 2006 11:30 

p.m. local time 

5.3 mt dw (11,684 lb 

dw) 

Small Coastal Sharks Gulf of Mexico January 1, 2006 To be determined, as 

necessary 

14.8 mt dw (32,628 lb 

dw) 

South Atlantic 284.6 mt dw (627,429 

lb dw)