Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24545 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

petroleum facilities, chemical plants, 

and facilities which use organic 

solvents. We are proposing to approve 

local rules to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by June 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0218], by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: PCAPCD Rule 216 Organic 

Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing 

Operations, SMAQMD Rule 466 Solvent 

Cleaning, SJVUAPCD Rule 4661 Organic 

Solvents, SCAQMD Rule 1173 Control 

of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks 

and Releases from Components at 

Petroleum Facilities and Chemical 

Plants. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

approving these local rules in a direct 

final action without prior proposal 

because we believe these SIP revisions 

are not controversial. If we receive 

adverse comments, however, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10401 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042; 

92210–1117–0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW56 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Polar Bear in the United 

States 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, and announcement of 

public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the polar bear (Ursus 

maritimus) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA), 

corrections to our proposed boundaries 

for sea-ice critical habitat, our intention 

to hold two public hearings to provide 

the public with an opportunity to 

submit testimony on the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

polar bear and on the DEA, and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

provide additional comment on the 

proposed rule, the associated DEA, 

corrections to our proposed boundaries 

for sea-ice critical habitat, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. If you submitted comments 

previously, you do not need to resubmit 

them because we have already 

incorporated them into the public 

record and will fully consider them in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

consider comments we receive on or 

before July 6, 2010. 

Public Hearings: We will hold two 

public hearings, one on June 15, 2010, 

from 7–10 p.m. in Anchorage, Alaska, 

and another on June 17, 2010, from 7– 

10 p.m. in Barrow, Alaska. During the 

first hour of these meetings (from 7–8 

p.m.), we will present information on 

the DEA and proposed critical habitat. 

Public comments will be taken from 8– 

10 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Please follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R7– 

ES–2009–0042; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

Public Hearings: 

• The Barrow, Alaska, public hearing 

will be held at In ̃upiat Heritage Center, 

5421 North Star Street, Barrow, Alaska. 

• The Anchorage, Alaska, public 

hearing will be held at Z.J. Loussac 

Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

For more information on the public 

hearings, see the Public Hearings 

section below. 

We will post all comments, and 

transcripts of the public hearings on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide to us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Evans, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine 

Mammals Management Office, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; by 

telephone (907–786–3800); or by 

facsimile (907–786–3816). Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the polar 

bear that we published in the Federal 

Register on October 29, 2009 

(74 FR 56058), the DEA of the proposed 

designation, corrections to our proposed 

boundaries for sea-ice critical habitat, 

and the amended required 

determinations section provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as critical 

habitat under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

including whether the benefit of 

designation would outweigh threats to 

the species caused by that designation, 

such that the designation of critical 

habitat is prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

habitat used by polar bear populations 

in the United States, specifically in the 

southern Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering 

Seas; 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing that contain features essential for 

the conservation of the species we 

should include in the designation and 

why; and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing, within the jurisdiction of the 

United States, are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species within proposed critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. Such impacts 

could include any potential impacts on 

oil and gas development and 

exploration. 

(5) Potential effects on oil and gas 

development and exploration including 

those related to impacts referenced in 

(4), and those relating to the opening of 

oil and gas lease sale areas in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

(6) Potential effects on native cultures 

and villages. 

(7) Potential effects on commercial 

shipping through the Northern Sea 

Route in anticipation of a longer 

navigable season. 

(8) Special management 

considerations or protections that the 

essential features, as identified in the 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat (74 FR 56058), may require. 

(9) Specific information on the 

incremental effects of the designation of 

critical habitat for the polar bear. In 

particular, will any aspect of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

result in consultations under section 7 

of the Act with a different set of 

protections than those afforded by the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)? 

(10) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(11) Information on whether the DEA 

identifies all Federal, State, and local 

costs and benefits attributable to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat, 

and information on any costs that we 

may have inadvertently overlooked. 

(12) Information on whether the DEA 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and any 

regulatory changes that likely may occur 

if we designate critical habitat. 

(13) Information on the accuracy of 

our methodology in the DEA for 

distinguishing baseline and incremental 

costs, and the assumptions underlying 

the methodology. 

(14) Information on whether the DEA 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land use controls 

that may result from the designation of 

critical habitat. 

(15) Information on the likelihood of 

adverse social reactions to the 

designation of critical habitat, as 

discussed in the DEA, and how the 

consequences of such reactions, if likely 

to occur, would relate to the 

conservation and regulatory benefits of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

(16) Information on areas that the 

members of the public have 

recommended we exclude from or add 

to our proposed critical habitat 

designation. Specifically, we may 

exercise our discretion to exclude areas 

from critical habitat designation if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

an area outweigh the benefits of 

including it, provided the exclusions 

will not result in the extinction of the 

species. In response to our Federal 

Register notice of October 29, 2009, the 

Service received comments 

recommending that we exclude certain 

areas from the critical habitat 

designation as provided for under the 

Act. The requested exclusions include 

the following: 

• Coastal villages that are either 

within or adjacent to proposed critical 

habitat. 

• Alaska Native and privately-owned 

lands, e.g., Village Corporations, 

organized municipalities, North Slope 

Borough land, and Alaska Native 

allotments. 

• Lands under the control of the U.S. 

Department of Defense, e.g., Long Range 

Radar Sites and Short Range Radar 

Sites. 

• Current and proposed oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production sites, including 

transportation corridors; all active and 

proposed oil and gas lease sale areas; 

and proposed sites for mining and 

shipping operations. 

• Areas where polar bears den 

infrequently, such as barrier islands that 

do not contain denning habitat; barrier 

islands in western Alaska; and areas 

that do not contain the specific habitat 

characteristics that allow for denning. 

• Areas where polar bears occur 

infrequently, such as the proposed 1.6- 

kilometer (km) (1-mile) no-disturbance 

area around the barrier islands; Norton 

Sound and Norton Bay; the Seward 

Peninsula; and sea-ice habitat when sea 

ice concentrations are less than 15 

percent. 

The Service also received comments 

recommending that we include 

additional areas in our proposed critical 

habitat designation, including: 

• The entire coastal plain of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

• Additional sea-ice habitat beyond 

the 300-meter (984-feet) isobath to 

encompass the entire 321 km (200 

miles) or the Exclusive Economic Zone. 

• All lands known to contain 

terrestrial dens. 

All comments we received in 

response to our October 29, 2009, 

proposed rule (74 FR 56058) that 

recommended exclusion or inclusion of 

lands from the designation of critical 

habitat are available for public review 

and comment at the Federal 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24547 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search under 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule, 

associated DEA, boundary corrections, 

or amended required determinations by 

one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. If you submit a 

comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information that you 

provide, such as your address, phone 

number and e-mail address—will be 

posted on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

this document, and the DEA, will be 

available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Marine Mammals Management 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule and the DEA on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042, or 

by mail from the Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires 

that we hold one public hearing if any 

person requests it within 45 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule. In 

response to requests from the public, the 

Service will hold two public hearings 

on our proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the polar bear on the 

dates and times shown in the DATES

section and at the locations shown in 

the ADDRESSES section. In addition to 

having the opportunity to provide oral 

comments in person, we will provide 

telephone access for the public hearing 

held in Barrow, Alaska. Contact the 

Marine Mammals Management Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 

for more information about obtaining 

telephone access for the Barrow, Alaska, 

public hearing. 

People wishing to make an oral 

statement for the record at a public 

hearing are encouraged to provide a 

written copy of their statement and 

present it to us at the hearing. In the 

event that attendance at the public 

hearings is large, the time allotted for 

oral statements may be limited. Oral and 

written statements receive equal 

consideration. There are no limits on 

the length of written comments 

submitted to us. If you have any 

questions concerning a public hearing, 

please contact the Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

People needing reasonable 

accommodations in order to attend and 

participate in the public hearings 

should contact the Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) as soon as 

possible. In order to allow sufficient 

time to process requests, please call no 

later than one week before the hearing 

date. 

Correction to Total Area Proposed for 

Critical Habitat 

The October 29, 2009, proposed rule 

(74 FR 56058) indicated a total proposed 

designation of approximately 519,403 

square kilometers (km2) (200,541 square 

miles (mi2)). However, we incorrectly 

identified the extent of U.S. territorial 

waters in that proposal; thus, we are 

reducing the area we are proposing as 

critical habitat for the polar bear to 

accurately reflect the U.S. boundary for 

proposed sea-ice habitat. With this 

change, we are proposing to designate in 

total approximately 484,764 km2

(187,166 mi2) of critical habitat for the 

polar bear. We have updated our maps 

to reflect this change; you may view 

revised maps on our Web site at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

polarbear/criticalhabitat.htm. You can 

obtain hard copies of maps by 

contacting the Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

polar bear. On July 16, 2008, the Center 

for Biological Diversity, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and, 

Greenpeace, Inc., filed an amended 

complaint against the Service for, in 

part, failing to designate critical habitat 

for the polar bear concurrently with the 

final listing rule [Center for Biological 

Diversity et al. v. Kempthorne et al., No. 

08–2113–D.D.C. (transferred from N.D. 

Cal.)]. On October 7, 2008, the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California entered an order approving 

a stipulated settlement of the parties. 

The stipulated settlement, in part, 

required the Service, on or before June 

30, 2010, to submit to the Federal 

Register a final critical habitat 

designation for the polar bear. On March 

24, 2010, the court approved a 

stipulation extending this deadline to 

November 23, 2010. Comments or 

information that we receive in response 

to the proposed rule will allow us to 

comply with the court order and section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. For more information 

on previous Federal actions concerning 

the polar bear, refer to the final listing 

rule and final special rule published in 

the Federal Register on May 15, 2008 

(73 FR 28212), and December 16, 2008 

(73 FR 76249), respectively. 

On October 29, 2009, we published a 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the polar bear (74 FR 56058). 

With the boundary change described 

above, we propose to designate 

approximately 484,764 km2 (187,166 

mi2) in three units including sea-ice, 

denning, and barrier island habitat. The 

proposed rule had an initial 60-day 

comment period that closed on 

December 28, 2009. 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions that 

affect critical habitat must consult with 

us on the effects of their proposed 

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

Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, or any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

We have prepared a DEA that 

identifies and analyzes the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the polar bear published in the Federal 

Register on October 29, 2009 (74 FR 

56058). The DEA quantifies the 

potential economic impacts of critical 

habitat designation for the polar bear. 

The economic impact of the proposed 

critical habitat designation is analyzed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

by comparing scenarios both ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical 

habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, and qualitatively considers 

protections already in place for the 

species (e.g., under the Federal listing 

and other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs incurred from polar 

bear conservation efforts expected to 

occur regardless of whether critical 

habitat is designated. The ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. The 

incremental conservation efforts and 

associated impacts are those not 

expected to occur absent the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we may consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis forecasts incremental impacts 

likely to occur if we finalize the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

The DEA provides estimated costs of 

the reasonably foreseeable potential 

economic impacts of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the polar 

bear through 2039. This time horizon 

pertains to the forecast of impacts to oil 

and gas exploration, development, and 

production, and associated construction 

projects, as these are the primary 

activities occurring within the proposed 

critical habitat area. It identifies 

potential incremental costs as a result of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, which are those costs 

attributed to critical habitat over and 

above those costs attributed to listing 

and the protections afforded the polar 

bear under the MMPA. The DEA 

quantifies economic impacts of polar 

bear conservation efforts associated with 

the following categories of activity: (1) 

Oil and gas exploration and 

development; (2) marine and coastal 

construction activities; (3) commercial 

shipping and marine transportation; and 

(4) U.S Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard 

operations. 

Polar bears and their habitat already 

receive significant regulatory protection 

under the MMPA and under the Act 

(due to the listing of the species as 

threatened). The incidental take 

regulations (73 FR 33212, 71 FR 43925) 

address the direct effects of oil and gas 

projects, and provide protection for 

habitats that are predictably used, such 

as denning habitat. Longer term 

planning actions, such as oil and gas 

lease sales, are reviewed under the 

section 7 jeopardy standard of the Act. 

For example, U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

Integrated Activity plans are reviewed 

under section 7 of the Act because polar 

bears are listed as a threatened species. 

Oil spills are not authorized; however, 

protections are provided through the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et 

seq.), which mandates contingency 

planning and enhanced capabilities for 

oil spill responses. Additionally, the 

State of Alaska’s Department of Natural 

Resources Division of Oil and Gas 

permits, while lacking a federal nexus, 

adopt and reiterate existing Federal 

requirements and protections, for 

example, requiring permittees to 

document and report sightings of polar 

bears to the Service, to maintain buffers 

of 1 mile around known polar bear dens, 

and to report to the Service within 24 

hours any new dens identified. These 

existing regulatory requirements 

provide significant protections for polar 

bears and their habitat, such that we 

anticipate only minimal additional 

regulatory involvement under the Act 

resulting from the designation of critical 

habitat. Costs associated with the 

designation of polar bear critical habitat 

are therefore limited primarily to the 

administrative costs of considering 

adverse modification in future section 7 

consultations under the Act (that is, in 

addition to considering jeopardy, which 

is considered due to the listing of the 

polar bear). The future (2010–2039) total 

present value incremental impacts 

(those estimated to occur because of 

critical habitat designation) are 

estimated to be $669,000 (an annualized 

impact of $53,900) assuming a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

On March 31, 2010, President Obama 

announced the opening of additional 

lease sale areas along the Outer 

Continental Shelf, including areas of the 

Eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic 

Ocean. The announcement did not open 

additional lease sale areas in the 

proposed critical habitat area for polar 

bears or the Arctic Ocean in general. 

The existing 5-year plans for the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (2007–2012) 

both proposed a series of lease sales. 

The Administration’s announcement 

states that planned lease sales in these 

areas that have not yet been conducted 

will be canceled. Exploration may 

continue on existing leases in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and the 

results of exploration, along with 

information from current and planned 

scientific studies, will help determine 

the extent to which additional lease 

sales in these areas are both needed and 

appropriate in the next 5-year program. 

(e.g., in the 2012–2017 5-year plan). 

This announcement relates to Section 

3.4 of the DEA, which describes 

potential future oil and gas activity in 

the proposed critical habitat area, 2010 

through 2039. Given changes in OCS 

policy, as described in the President’s 

announcement, the DEA may overstate 

future oil and gas development activity 

in areas proposed for critical habitat. 

However, these changes are unlikely to 

have an effect on the findings of the 

DEA. This is because, regardless of 

scope and scale of future oil and gas 

development, critical habitat 

designation will not result in changes to 

polar bear conservation requirements 

(i.e., the FWS anticipates that polar bear 

conservation will continue to be driven 

by the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

and the bear’s listing status). In 

addition, the discussion contained in 

Section 3.2 of the DEA, which addresses 

the limited direct incremental economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation 

and the potential for indirect impacts, 

remains unchanged. 

As stated earlier, we are requesting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as all aspects of the 

proposed rule, our boundary 

corrections, and our amended required 

determinations. We may revise the 

proposed rule or supporting documents 

to incorporate or address information 

we receive during the reopened public 

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, provided the 

exclusions will not result in the 

extinction of this species. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our October 29, 2009, proposed 

rule (74 FR 56058), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have used the 

DEA data to make these determinations. 

In this document, we affirm the 

information in our proposed rule 

concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 

13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, 

Supply, Distribution, and Use), the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24549 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA data, we revise our 

required determination concerning the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions), as described below. 

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 on our DEA of the proposed 

designation, we provide our analysis for 

determining whether the proposed rule 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of our final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include: Oil and gas 

extraction and drilling, natural gas 

distribution, and mining concerns with 

fewer than 500 employees; oil and gas 

or mining support activities, water 

supply and irrigation systems, land 

subdivision, air traffic control and 

airport operations, and transportation 

support activities with annual average 

revenues of less than $6.5 million; 

construction-related businesses with 

less than $31 million in average annual 

revenues; and pipeline transportation of 

crude oil businesses with less than 

1,500 employees. 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 operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

polar bear would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities, i.e., oil and gas exploration 

and development, and marine and 

coastal development activities. 

Specifically, we identified 131 entities 

that may be impacted by the designation 

of critical habitat, and of these, 112 

entities meet the small business 

threshold. These entities include local 

governments (e.g., the North Slope 

Borough and the Northwest Arctic 

Borough), construction companies, 

specialty trade contractors, airport 

operations and support contractors, and 

other support contracting companies. In 

estimating the numbers of small entities 

potentially affected, we considered 

whether the activities of these entities 

may include any Federal involvement, 

in particular, activities that may trigger 

a consultation under section 7 of the 

Act. Critical habitat designation will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; designation of 

critical habitat affects activities 

conducted, funded, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. 

If we finalize the proposed critical 

habitat designation, Federal agencies 

must consult with us under section 7 of 

the Act 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. 

As described in Appendix A of the 

DEA, the potential impacts to small 

businesses are those associated with 

administrative costs resulting from the 

need to conduct consultations under 

section 7 of the Act. These costs 

associated with small businesses fall 

under two primary component 

activities: (1) Oil and Gas Exploration, 

Development, and Production, and (2) 

Construction and Development 

Activities. As discussed in Appendix A 

of the DEA, we anticipate both of these 

primary activities to be minimally 

impacted by a designation of critical 

habitat because they are generally 

covered by existing regional regulations 

(e.g., the MMPA’s incidental take 

regulations at (73 FR 33212, 71 FR 

43925)), or associated with section 7 

consultation processes. As a 

consequence, we anticipate only 

minimal additional regulatory 

involvement under the Act resulting 

from the designation of critical habitat. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the designation of critical 

habitat for the polar bear would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Marine 

Mammals Management Office, Alaska 

Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: March 19, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10512 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 253 

[Docket No. 0908061221–91225–01] 

RIN 0648–AY16 

Merchant Marine Act and MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) Provisions; Fishing Vessel, 

Fishing Facility and Individual Fishing 

Quota Lending Program Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Fisheries Finance 

Program (FFP or the Program) provides 

long-term financing to the commercial 

fishing and aquaculture industries for 

fishing vessels, fisheries facilities, 

aquaculture facilities, and individual 

fishing quotas (IFQs). The Program 

became a direct loan program, as a 

result of legislation in 1996, replacing a 

guaranteed loan program. The FFP 

collects loan principal and interest from 

loan recipients and fees from applicants 

in order to repay monies borrowed from 

the U.S. Treasury. It maintains fixed 

interest rates that are comparable to 

those of private sector lenders, however 

the FFP allows borrowers to prepay 

without penalty, and may carry longer 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1