        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 80
        [FWS-R9-WSR-2008-0035; 91400-5110-0000-7B]
        RIN 1018-AV99
        Financial Assistance: Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, Hunter Education and Safety

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose changes in the regulations governing the Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Hunter Education and Safety financial assistance programs. We propose to (a) address changes in law, and regulation; (b) clarify rules on license certification to address a greater number of licensing choices that States have offered hunters and anglers; (c) delete provisions on audits and records that are addressed in other regulations broadly applicable to financial assistance programs managed by the Department of the Interior; and (d) reword the regulations to make them easier to understand. The proposed changes would improve the regulations by making them more current and clear.

          DATES:
          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 4, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AV99; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-2156.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages 38 financial assistance programs, 14 of which are managed, in whole or in part, by the Service's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration activity (WSFR). This proposed rule will revise title 50, part 80, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which contains the regulations that govern three WSFR programs: Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Hunter Education and Safety. The Sport Fish Restoration program includes freshwater and marine fisheries, aquatic resource education, and boat access programs. These programs provide financial assistance to the fish and wildlife agencies of States and other eligible jurisdictions to manage fish and wildlife and provide hunter education and safety programs. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov describes these programs under 15.611, 15.605, and 15.626.
        The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of September 2, 1937, and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of August 9, 1950, as amended, established the programs affected by this proposed rule. These acts are more commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (50 Stat. 917; 16 U.S.C. 669-669k) and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (64 Stat. 430; 16 U.S.C. 777-777n). They established a user-pay and user-benefit system in which the fish and wildlife agencies of the States, Commonwealths, and territories receive formula-based funding from a continuing appropriation. The District of Columbia also receives such funding, but only for managing fish resources. Industry partners pay taxes on equipment and gear manufactured for purchase by hunters, anglers, boaters, archers, and recreational shooters. The Service then distributes those funds to the fish and wildlife agencies of States and other eligible jurisdictions. States must match these Federal funds by providing a 25-percent cost share. In fiscal year 2008, the States and other eligible jurisdictions received $310 million through the Wildlife Restoration and Hunter Education and Safety programs and $398 million through the Sport Fish Restoration program.
        The Service revised two sections of 50 CFR 80 in 2001, but we have not systematically reviewed other sections for revision since the 1980's. Consequently, some provisions do not reflect:
        (a) The promulgation in 1988 of 43 CFR part 12, subpart C “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments”;
        (b) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century in 1998, which raised the minimum level of spending for boating access in the Sport Fish Restoration program from 10 to 15 percent; and
        (c) The Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, that required the use of plain language in Government writing.
        In addition, we must clarify 50 CFR 80.10 on certification of hunting and fishing licenses to address the greater number of licensing choices that some States and other jurisdictions have offered hunters and anglers in recent years.
        Updates to the Regulations
        We propose to update and revise the regulations at 50 CFR part 80 to reflect a 2000 amendment of the legal authority that established the affected program. More specifically, we propose to change the names of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of September 2, 1937, and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of August 9, 1950, to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. We propose to change the name of the activities associated with the management of the affected financial assistance programs from “Federal Aid” to “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.” We also propose to update the U.S. Code citations in 50 CFR 80.1 for the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. The proposed changes above will make 50 CFR part 80 consistent with the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Improvement Act of 2000.
        We propose to make nonsubstantive administrative changes in 50 CFR part 80 to ensure that its provisions accurately reflect law and regulation to implement changes that have occurred in these areas over the past 20 years. We would replace the reference in § 80.14 to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102's Attachment N with 43 CFR 12.71 and 12.932 as a source of guidance on the use and disposition of unneeded real property.
        The provisions of § 80.19 on records and § 80.22 on audits also refer to subject matter that was in the 1971 version of A-102. We would delete all the contents of these sections because 43 CFR 12.82 and 12.66 are applicable to the affected programs, and they address these subjects adequately.

        We propose to delete the definition and references to the “Federal Aid Manual” in § 80.1 and § 80.11 because the “Federal Aid Manual” is a compendium of the Director's instructions to his or her employees and not appropriate for regulations, which are directed toward and have impacts on the public. We propose to delete references to the Standard Forms (SF) 271 and 269B and add SF 269 in § 80.27 to reflect the forms approved by OMB. We propose to delete § 80.27(d) because the form required by that paragraph, a grant agreement, is no longer valid. We also deleted the estimates of the time required to fill out the forms because such specific information that will change over time is not appropriate for regulations.

        We propose to change “aquatic education” to “aquatic resource education” in § 80.15 to reflect more accurately the language of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. We will apply plain language principles to those provisions where we have to change or clarify the content of the regulations. This conversion to plain language will make the affected provisions clearer as well as comply with the Service's plain language policy. More specifically, we will replace words that are susceptible to different meanings with words that are more precise, e.g., we propose to change “shall” to “must.” We will refer to the territories, Commonwealths, and the District of Columbia in a consistent way throughout 50 CFR 80. Finally, we will alphabetize definitions in § 80.1 for ease of reference and to conform to policy of the Office of the Federal Register.
        Clarifying the Requirements
        We propose to make administrative changes in 50 CFR part 80 to ensure that the process for certifying the number of hunter and angler licenses provides accurate data that are comparable among the States (“States” include Commonwealths, territories, and the District of Columbia in the context of license certification.). This proposed change is important because we apportion funds to the States based in part on the numbers of these licenses. We need to clarify this process because, as States offered more licensing options, they began to use different approaches in counting the individuals who purchased licenses. We propose several changes to resolve this problem. We would clarify the 12-month period during which a State-identified license year must end. We would also establish a common approach for States to assign single-year license holders to a license year. Under this approach, States would assign single-year license holders only to the period in which they purchased the license instead of having the option of assigning them to the period in which their licenses are valid. Finally, we would clarify that, under certain conditions, States may assign a person who purchases a multiyear license to each license period in which the license is valid.
        We propose to add the territory of American Samoa to the jurisdictions in § 80.2(b) that are eligible to participate in the benefits of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This is consistent with sections 4(c) and 8(a) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
        We propose to add the District of Columbia to the list of jurisdictions in § 80.12 for which the non-Federal cost sharing must not exceed 25 percent. This change is consistent with section 12 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.
        We propose to increase the minimum expenditure of Sport Fish Restoration apportioned dollars for recreational boating access facilities in § 80.24 from “10 per centum” to “15 percent.” This change would reflect an amendment of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act that was in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. By increasing the percentage consistent with the 1998 act, we would also change “per centum” to its modern counterpart “percent.”
        Finally, we propose to add a provision at § 80.28 that allows the Director to authorize exceptions to any provisions of 50 CFR part 80 that are not explicitly required by law. This proposal recognizes that at some point in the future, natural catastrophes or other extreme situations may justify exceptions to some provisions of 50 CFR part 80.
        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal information in addition to the required items specified above, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, 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.

        We are opening a comment period of only 30 days because we believe that this amount of time will be sufficient for several reasons: (a) The proposed changes are primarily administrative and nonsubstantive, (b) the affected entities are aware of our intention to propose these changes to improve the regulations, (c) the general public is basically unaffected by these regulations, and (d) no benefit to the public would result from offering a longer comment period and extending the overall timeframe for this rulemaking.
        Required Determinations
        Clarity of This Regulation
        Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
        (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
        (3) Does the format of the rule (e.g., grouping, order of sections, use of headings, and paragraphing) aid or reduce its clarity?
        (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol § and a numbered heading; for example: “§ 80.15 Allowable costs.”)
        (5) Does the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble help you to understand the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You also may e-mail comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

        OMB has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:

        (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
        (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
        (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
        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 (Pub. L. 104-121)), 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this proposed rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and have determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the changes we are proposing are intended to: (a) Address changes in law and regulation; (b) clarify rules on license certification to address a greater number of licensing choices that States and other jurisdictions have offered hunters and anglers; (c) delete provisions on audits and records that are addressed in other regulations; and (d) reword the regulations to make them easier to understand. No costs are associated with this regulatory change. Consequently, we certify that because this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        This proposed rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        a. This proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. This proposed rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        c. This proposed rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:
        a. This proposed rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. The programs governed by the current regulations assist small governments financially, and the proposed rule would simply improve these regulations.
        b. This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications because it would not contain a provision for taking of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
        Federalism
        This proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds. We work closely with the States in administration of these programs. The proposed rule will benefit recipients in three grant programs by establishing a common approach and clarifying the rules applicable to grant recipients' legally required annual certification of the number of hunters and anglers who purchased licenses.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of the Order. The proposed rule will also benefit grantees by eliminating unnecessary or outdated elements of the regulations governing the affected programs and by making the regulations easier to understand.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        We examined the proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not collect or sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The proposed rule will clarify 50 CFR 80.10, which requires States to submit information on the number of persons holding hunting and fishing licenses. On January 25, 2007, OMB approved our collection of information from States based on the requirements of 50 CFR 80.10. OMB approved this information collection on forms FWS 3-154a and 3-154b under control number 1018-0007. The proposed rule does not change the information items required on forms FWS 3-154a and 3-154b. It merely establishes a common approach for States to assign license holders to a license year for purposes of the information collection. The proposed rule will also remove outdated information in 50 CFR 80.27.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f) and part 516 of the Departmental Manual. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/assessment is not required due to the categorical exclusion for administrative changes provided at 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, section 1.10.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This proposed rule would not interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

        On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Author
        The author of this rulemaking is Tom McCoy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, WSFR-4020, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 80
          Fish, Grant programs—natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols, Wildlife.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 80 of subchapter F, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

          SUBCHAPTER F—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE—WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

        1. Revise the heading of subchapter F to read as set forth above.

          PART 80—ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION AND DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACTS
          2. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 777-777n; 16 U.S.C. 669-669k; 18 U.S.C. 701.

          3. Revise the heading of part 80 to read as set forth above.
          4. Revise § 80.1 to read as follows:

            § 80.1
            Definitions.
            As used in this part, the following terms have these meanings:

              Common horsepower. Any size motor that can be reasonably accommodated on the body of water slated for development.

              Comprehensive fish and wildlife management plan. A document describing the State's plan for meeting the long-range needs of the public for fish and wildlife resources, and the system for managing the plan.

              Director. The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), or his or her designated representative. The Director serves as the Secretary's representative in matters relating to the administration and execution of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts.

              Project. One or more related undertakings necessary to fulfill a need or needs, as defined by the State, and consistent with the purposes of the appropriate Act.

              Regional Director. The regional director of any region of the Service, or his or her designated representative.

              Resident angler. One who fishes within the same State where legal residence is maintained.

              Resident hunter. One who hunts within the same State where legal residence is maintained.

              Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior or his or her designated representative.

              State. Any State of the United States and the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. References to “the 50 States” pertain only to the 50 States of the United States and do not include these other six areas.

              State fish and wildlife agency. The agency or official of a State designated under State law or regulation to carry out the laws of the State in relation to the management of fish and wildlife resources of the State. Such an agency or official also designated to exercise collateral responsibilities, e.g., a State Department of Natural Resources, will be considered the State fish and wildlife agency only when exercising the responsibilities specific to the management of the fish and wildlife resources of the State.

              Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts or the Acts. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of September 2, 1937, as amended (50 Stat. 917; 16 U.S.C. 669-669k), and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act of August 9, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 430; 16 U.S.C. 777-777n).

              Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Funds. Funds provided under the Acts.
            5. Amend § 80.2 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

            § 80.2
            Eligibility.

            (a) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration—Any of the States as defined in § 80.1.
            (b) Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration—Any of the States as defined in § 80.1, except the District of Columbia.

            § 80.4
            [Amended]
            6. Amend paragraph (a)(4) of § 80.4 by removing the words “Federal Aid project” and adding in their place the word “Project”.

            § 80.5
            [Amended]
            7. Amend § 80.5 by:
            a. In paragraph (a), removing the words “Federal Aid in” and adding in their place the words “Pittman-Robertson”; and
            b. In paragraph (b), removing the words “Federal Aid in” and adding in their place the words “Dingell-Johnson”.

            § 80.9
            [Amended]
            8. Amend paragraph (b) of § 80.9 by removing the words “Federal Aid” and adding in their place the words “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program”.
            9. Revise § 80.10 to read as follows:

            § 80.10
            State Certification of Licenses.
            (a) To ensure proper apportionment of Federal funds, the Service requires that each director of a State fish and wildlife agency:
            (1) Specify an accounting period that
            (i) Is 12 consecutive months in length;
            (ii) Corresponds with or includes the State's fiscal year or license year; and
            (iii) Ends no less than 1 year and no more than 2 years before the beginning of the Federal fiscal year that the apportioned funds first become available for expenditure; and
            (2) Annually provide to the Service the following data:
            (i) The number of people in that State who, during the State-specified period established in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, hold purchased licenses that authorize an individual to hunt in the State; and
            (ii) The number of people in that State who, during the State-specified period established in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, hold purchased licenses that authorize an individual to fish in the State.
            (b) When counting people holding purchased hunting or fishing licenses in a State-specified 12-month period, a State fish and wildlife agency must abide by the following requirements:
            (1) The State may count all persons who possess a purchased license that allows the licensee to hunt or fish for sport or recreation. The State may not count persons holding a license that allows the licensee to trap animals or engage in commercial activities.

            (2) The State may count only those persons who possess a license that produced net revenue, which is an amount of at least $1.00 per year returned to the State fish and wildlife agency after deducting agents' or sellers' fees and the cost of printing, distribution, control, or other costs directly associated with issuance of the license.
            (3) The State may count persons possessing a single-year license (one that is valid for less than 2 years) only in the State-specified 12-month period in which the license was purchased.
            (4) The State may count persons possessing a multiyear license (one that is valid for 2 years or more) in each State-specified 12-month period in which the license is valid, whether the period of validity is a specific or indeterminate number of years, only if:
            (i) The licensee is required to have a purchased license to fish or hunt anywhere in the State during the State-specified 12-month period;
            (ii) The net revenue from the license is commensurate with the number of years in which both the license is valid and the licensee is required to have a purchased license to fish or hunt anywhere in the State; and
            (iii) The State fish and wildlife agency uses statistical sampling or other appropriate techniques to determine whether the licensee remains a license holder and is required to have a purchased license to fish or hunt anywhere in the State in the State-specified 12-month period.
            (5) The State may count persons possessing a combination license (one that permits the licensee to both hunt and fish) with both
            (i) The number of people who hold purchased hunting licenses in the State-specified 12-month period and
            (ii) The number of people who hold purchased fishing licenses during the same State-specified 12-month period.
            (6) The State may count persons possessing multiple hunting or fishing licenses (in States that require or permit more than one license to hunt or more than one license to fish) only once with
            (i) The number of people who hold purchased hunting licenses in the State-specified 12-month period and
            (ii) The number of people who hold purchased fishing licenses during the same State-specified 12-month period.
            (c) The director of the State fish and wildlife agency must certify the information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, and, if the Director requests it, provide documentation to support the accuracy of this information. The director of the State fish and wildlife agency is responsible for eliminating multiple counting of single individuals in the information that he or she certifies and may use statistical sampling or other appropriate techniques for this purpose.
            (d) The director of the State fish and wildlife agency must provide the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the Service by the date and in the format that the Director specifies.
            (e) Once the Director approves the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Service must not adjust the numbers if such adjustment would adversely impact any apportionment of funds to a State fish and wildlife agency other than the State fish and wildlife agency whose certified numbers are being adjusted.
            10. Revise § 80.11 to read as follows:

            § 80.11
            Submission of proposals.
            A State may apply to use funds apportioned under the Acts by submitting to the Regional Director either a comprehensive fish and wildlife management plan or grant proposal.
            (a) Each application must contain such information as the Regional Director may require to determine if the proposed activities are in accordance with the Acts and the provisions of this part.
            (b) The State must submit each application and amendments of scope to the State Clearinghouse as required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 and by State Clearinghouse requirements.
            (c) Applications must be signed by the director of the State fish and wildlife agency or an official delegated to exercise the authority and responsibilities of the State director in committing the State to participate under the Acts. The director of each State fish and wildlife agency must notify the Regional Director, in writing, of the official(s) authorized to sign the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program documents, and any changes in such authorizations.
            11. Amend § 80.12 by revising the introductory text and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 80.12
            Cost sharing.
            Federal participation is limited to 75 percent of eligible costs incurred in the completion of approved work or the Federal share specified in the grant, whichever is less, except that the non-Federal cost sharing for the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa must not exceed 25 percent and may be waived at the discretion of the Regional Director.

            (b) The non-Federal share of project costs may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions.

            12. Revise § 80.14 to read as follows:

            § 80.14
            Application of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds.
            (a) States must apply Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds only to activities or purposes approved by the Regional Director. If otherwise applied, such funds must be replaced or the State becomes ineligible to participate.
            (b) Real property acquired or constructed with Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds must continue to serve the purpose for which acquired or constructed.
            (1) When such property passes from management control of the State fish and wildlife agency, the control must be fully restored to the State fish and wildlife agency or the real property must be replaced using non-Federal funds. Replacement property must be of equal value at current market prices and with equal benefits as the original property. The State may have up to 3 years from the date of notification by the Regional Director to acquire replacement property before becoming ineligible.
            (2) When such property is used for purposes that interfere with the accomplishment of approved purposes, the violating activities must cease and any adverse effects resulting must be remedied.
            (3) When such property is no longer needed or useful for its original purpose, and with prior approval of the Regional Director, the property must be used or disposed of as provided by 43 CFR 12.71 or 43 CFR 12.932.
            (c) Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds cannot be used for the purpose of producing income. However, income-producing activities incidental to accomplishment of approved purposes are allowable. Income derived from such activities must be accounted for in the project records and disposed of as directed by the Director.
            13. Amend § 80.15 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) to read as follows:

            § 80.15
            Allowable costs.

            (c ) Are costs allowable if they are incurred prior to the date of the grant? Costs incurred prior to the effective date of the grant are allowable only when specifically provided for in the grant.
            (d) How are costs allocated in multipurpose projects or facilities?
              Projects or facilities designed to include purposes other than those eligible under either the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration or Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Acts must provide for the allocation of costs among the various purposes. The method used to allocate costs must produce an equitable distribution of costs based on the relative uses or benefits provided.

            (f) How much money may be obligated for aquatic resource education and outreach and communications? (1) Each of the 50 States may spend no more than 15 percent of the annual amount apportioned to it under the provisions of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act for an aquatic resource education and outreach and communications program for the purpose of increasing public understanding of the Nation's water resources and associated aquatic life forms.
            (2) The Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are not limited to the 15-percent cap imposed on the 50 States. Each of these entities may spend more for these purposes with the approval of the appropriate Regional Director.

            § 80.16
            Payments.
            14. Amend § 80.16 by:
            a. Revising the section heading as set forth above;
            b. Removing the word “shall” wherever it appears and adding in its place the word “must”; and
            c. Removing the words “regional director” and “region director” wherever they appear and adding in their place the words “Regional Director”.
            15. Revise § 80.17 to read as follows:

            § 80.17
            Maintenance.
            The State is responsible for maintenance of all capital improvements acquired or constructed with Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds throughout the useful life of each improvement. Costs for such maintenance are allowable when provided for in approved projects. The maintenance of improvements acquired or constructed with funds other than funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program are allowable costs when such improvements are necessary for accomplishment of project purposes as approved by the Regional Director, and when such costs are otherwise allowable by law.

            § 80.19
            [Removed]
            16. Remove and reserve § 80.19.

            § 80.20
            [Amended]
            17. Amend § 80.20 by removing the words “Federal Aid” and adding in their place the words “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program”.

            § 80.22
            [Removed]
            18. Remove and reserve § 80.22.
            19. Amend § 80.23 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows:

            § 80.23
            Allocation of funds between marine and freshwater fishery projects.
            (a) Each coastal State, to the extent practicable, must equitably allocate those funds specified by the Secretary, in the apportionment of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration funds, between projects having recreational benefits for marine fisheries and projects having recreational benefits for freshwater fisheries.
            (1) Coastal States are: Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington; the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa; and the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

            20. Revise § 80.24 to read as follows:

            § 80.24
            Recreational boating access facilities.
            The State must allocate at least 15 percent of each annual apportionment under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act for recreational boating access facilities. All facilities constructed, acquired, developed, renovated, or maintained (including existing structures for which maintenance is provided) must be for providing additional, improved, or safer access of public waters for boating recreation as part of the State's effort for the restoration, management, and public use of sport fish. Although a broad range of access facilities and associated amenities can qualify for funding under the 15 percent provision, the State must accommodate power boats with common horsepower ratings, and must make reasonable efforts to accommodate boats with larger horsepower ratings if they would not conflict with aquatic resources management. Any portion of the 15 percent set aside for the above purposes that remain unexpended or unobligated after 2 years must revert to the Service.

            § 80.25
            [Amended]
            21. Amend § 80.25 by:
            a. In the section heading and paragraph (a), removing the words “Federal Aid in” and adding in their place the words “Dingell-Johnson”; and
            b. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), removing the word “Aid”.
            22. Amend § 80.26 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (b), (f) introductory text, (g) introductory text, and (h) introductory text to read as set forth below:

            § 80.26
            Symbols.
            We have prescribed distinctive symbols to identify projects funded by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act and items on which taxes and duties have been collected to support the respective Acts.

            (b) Other persons or organizations may use the symbol(s) for purposes related to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program as authorized by the Director. Authorization for the use of the symbol(s) will be by written agreement executed by the Service and the user. To obtain authorization, submit a written request stating the specific use and items to which the symbol(s) will be applied to Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240.

            (f) The symbol pertaining to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act is below. * * *
            (g) The symbol pertaining to the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act is below. * * *
            (h) The symbol pertaining to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act when used in combination is below.
            * * *
            23. Revise § 80.27 to read as follows:

            § 80.27
            Information collection requirements.

            (a) Information gathering requirements include filling out forms to apply for certain benefits offered by the Federal Government. Information gathered under this part is authorized under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777n) and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669k). The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and applicants or grantees are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the request displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved our collection of information under OMB control number 1018-0007. Our requests for information will be used to apportion funds and to review and make decisions on grant applications and reimbursement payment requests submitted to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.
            (b) Submit comments on the accuracy of the information collection requirements to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Collection Clearance Officer, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
            24. Add new § 80.28 to read as follows:

            § 80.28
            Exceptions.
            The Director may authorize exceptions to any provisions of this part that are not explicitly required by law.

            Dated: April 16, 2008.
            Lyle Laverty,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E8-9785 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU86
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego Thornmint)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, corrections to proposed critical habitat, notice of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required Determinations.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego thornmint) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce corrections to proposed critical habitat subunits 3C, 3D, 3F, 4A, 4B, and 4C as described in the preamble to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11946); announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation; and announce amended Required Determinations for the proposal. The draft economic analysis provides information about the pre-designation costs and forecasts post-designation costs associated with conservation efforts for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The draft economic analysis estimates potential future costs to be approximately $0.6 to $2.8 million in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period in areas proposed as final critical habitat and approximately $1.6 to $5.1 million in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period in areas proposed for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The amended Required Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance with applicable statutes and Executive orders that we have deferred until the information from the draft economic analysis of the proposal was available.
          We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, corrections to the preamble of the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended Required Determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until December 27, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of several methods:
          (1) By mail or hand-delivery to: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
          (2) By electronic mail (e-mail) to:
            fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for other information about electronic filing.
          (3) By fax to: the attention of Jim Bartel at 760-431-5901.
          (4) Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section (telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Comments Solicited

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on the proposed critical habitat designation for Acanthomintha ilicifolia published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11946), the corrections to the proposed critical habitat described herein (see Corrections to Proposed Critical Habitat section), and 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 we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        • The amount and distribution of Acanthomintha ilicifolia habitat,
        • What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain features essential to the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and
        • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

        (4) Our proposed exclusion of 1,134 acres (ac) (459 hectares (ha)) of lands already conserved or targeted for conservation within subarea plans under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and the San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) from the final designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the proposed critical habitat rule for details of these habitat conservation plans (HCPs)). Please note that in the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946), we sought comments on our proposed exclusion of 1,302 ac (527 ha) of non-Federal lands from the final designation. In this notice, we have made several corrections that have resulted in reductions in the areas being proposed as critical habitat and the area being proposed for exclusion (see Corrections to the Proposed Rule below for a detailed discussion of these corrections).

        We are specifically seeking public comment on our proposed exclusion of lands covered under the City of Encinitas subarea plan of the MHCP (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the proposed critical habitat rule for details of this HCP). It is our understanding that little progress has been made by the City of Encinitas to finalize their subarea plan since the 2001 release of the draft plan. Based on information received during the public comment period, the Secretary may determine that sufficient progress has not been made and that lands within the City of Encinitas' subarea plan should not be excluded from the final designation. Specifically, useful information would include: whether essential lands within Encinitas are being managed, or are reasonably assured of being managed, to conserve Acanthomintha ilicifolia, and the outlook for completion of the draft subarea plan.
        Please provide information concerning whether the benefit of excluding any of these specific areas from the critical habitat designation outweighs the benefit of including these areas in the designation under section 4(b)(2). If the Secretary determines that the benefits of including these lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will not be excluded from final critical habitat.
        (5) Our corrections to proposed critical habitat subunits 3C, 3D, 3F, 4A, 4B, and 4C as described in this notice (see Corrections to Proposed Critical Habitat section below).

        (6) Information on whether, and, if so, the extent to which any State and local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of Acanthomintha ilicifolia, and which were either already in place at the time of listing or enacted for other reasons.

        (7) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits that have been inadvertently overlooked.
        (8) Information on 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) Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat.

        (10) Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia.
        (11) 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; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a disproportionate impact on small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities.
        (12) Information on whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation.
        (13) Information on whether there are any quantifiable economic benefits that could result from the designation of critical habitat.
        (14) Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area from the critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweighs the benefit of including the area in the designation.
        (15) Economic data on the incremental impacts that would result from designating any particular area as critical habitat, since it is our intent to include the incremental costs attributed to the critical habitat designation in the final economic analysis.
        (16) 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.
        The Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, an area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact.

        Comments and information submitted during the initial comment period from March 14, 2007, to May 14, 2007, on the proposed rule (72 FR 11946) need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. 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). Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we have received during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the draft economic analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
        If you use e-mail to submit your comments, please include “Attn: San Diego thornmint” in your e-mail subject header, preferably with 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 e-mail, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). You may obtain copies of the proposed critical habitat rule and the draft economic analysis by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or by visiting our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad.
        Background

        On August 10, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society challenged our failure to designate critical habitat for this species as well as four other plant species (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, C-04-3240 JL (N. D. Cal.)). In settlement of the lawsuit, the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, if prudent, on or before February 28, 2007, and a final designation by February 28, 2008. On March 14, 2007, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia (72 FR 11946), identifying a total of approximately 1,936 ac (783 ha) of land in San Diego County, California. Of the total area proposed, we proposed to exclude from the final critical habitat designation 1,302 ac (527 ha) of land under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Corrections to Proposed Critical Habitat

        By this notice, we are advising the public of corrections in area, land ownership, and San Diego MSCP boundary associations within six of the subunits described in the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946): Subunit 3C (Viejas Mountain), Subunit 3D (Viejas Mountain), Subunit 3F (Poser Mountain), Subunit 4A (McGinty Mountain), Subunit 4B (McGinty Mountain), and Subunit 4C (McGinty Mountain).

        In our March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946) we proposed to exclude a total of 95 ac (38 ha) of private lands in subunits 3C, 3D, and 3F from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We believed that these lands were within the planning boundary for the San Diego MSCP (see “Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section of the proposed rule (72 FR 11946, March 14, 2007) for a detailed discussion of this proposed exclusion). However, the private lands in subunits 3C, 3D, and 3F are not within the planning boundary for the San Diego MSCP, and we are no longer proposing to exclude these lands from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The draft economic analysis reflects that we are no longer proposing to exclude these 95 ac (38 ha) of lands.
        In this notice, we are also correcting errors within subunits 4A and 4B. The maps and boundary descriptions of subunits 4A and 4B were delineated correctly in the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946); however, the area estimates in the preamble were incorrect. The correct area for subunit 4A is 20 ac (8 ha) rather than 18 ac (7 ha), and the correct area for subunit 4B is 148 ac (60 ha) rather than 220 ac (89 ha). The draft economic analysis reflects these corrections to area estimates.

        Furthermore, the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946), did not identify that subunit 4A contains 2 ac (1 ha) of federally owned land and subunit 4C contains 1 ac (less then 1/2 ha) of federally owned land. Both of these subunits overlap slightly with the Service's San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. We proposed to exclude all private and State/local lands in subunits 4A and 4C from the final designation based on the benefits provided to Acanthomintha ilicifolia by the MSCP (see “Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section of the proposed rule (72 FR 11946, March 14, 2007) for a detailed discussion of this proposed exclusion). While we are continuing to propose to exclude all private and State/local lands covered by the MSCP, we are clarifying that this proposed exclusion does not include Federal lands, and, therefore, we overestimated the proposed exclusion by 3 acres (1 ha). The draft economic analysis does not reflect this change; however, the final economic analysis will be revised to address the incorporation of 3 ac (1 ha) of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge into the proposed designation.
        As a result of these corrections, the total identified critical habitat area has been reduced from 1,936 ac (783 ha) to 1,867 ac (756 ha). The total area being proposed for exclusion from the final designation has been reduced from 1,302 ac (527 ha) to 1,134 ac (459 ha). The draft economic analysis states that we are proposing to exclude 1,137 ac (460 ha) of critical habitat; however, that figure erroneously includes 3 ac (1 ha) of federally owned lands in subunits 4A and 4C. Other than these corrections, the proposed rule of March 14, 2007, remains intact.
        Draft Economic Analysis

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based on the March 14, 2007, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia, (72 FR 11946), we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.

        The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Acanthomintha ilicifolia; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and other conservation-related actions for this species over the next 20 years. It also considers past costs associated with conservation of the species from the time it was listed (63 FR 54938, October 13, 1998), until the year the proposed critical habitat rule was published (72 FR 11946, March 14, 2007).
        Activities associated with the conservation of Acanthomintha ilicifolia are likely to primarily impact future land development, recreation management, and exotic plant species management. Pre-designation (1998-2007) impacts associated with species conservation activities in areas proposed for final designation are estimated at $53,000 in 2007 dollars. The draft economic analysis forecasts post-designation impacts in the areas proposed for final designation at $0.6 to $2.8 million (undiscounted dollars) over the next 20 years. The present value of these impacts, applying a 3 percent discount rate, is $0.4 to $2.1 million ($25,000 to $137,000 annualized); or $0.3 to $1.5 million ($25,000 to $136,000 annualized) using a 7 percent discount rate. Total undiscounted future impacts in areas proposed for exclusion according to section 4(b)(2) of the Act are forecast at approximately $1.6 to $5.1 million over the next 20 years. The present value of these impacts applying a 3 percent discount rate is approximately $1.2 to $3.7 million or approximately $0.8 to $2.6 million applying a 7 percent discount rate. In annualized terms, potential impacts are expected to range from $77,000 to $253,000 (annualized at 3 percent) and $72,000 to $248,000 (annualized at 7 percent) in areas proposed for exclusion. The cost estimates are based on the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11946) as well as the corrections we have identified above in subunits 3C, 3D, 3F, 4A, and 4B. The cost estimates assume that we are proposing to exclude 3 ac (1 ha) of federally owned lands in subunits 4A and 4C; we are not proposing to exclude any federally owned lands from this designation. We will address the costs associated with this last correction in more detail in the final economic analysis.

        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of Acanthomintha ilicifolia, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to the designation of critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for Acanthomintha ilicifolia in areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species. The draft economic analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).

        This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date Acanthomintha ilicifolia was listed as threatened (63 FR 54938; October 13, 1998) and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat. Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond this point would be speculative.
        As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal. We may revise the proposal or its supporting documents to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Required Determinations—Amended
        In our March 14, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 11946), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132; E.O. 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia, post-designation impacts are estimated to be approximately $0.6 to $2.8 million (undiscounted dollars) over the next 20 years in the areas proposed as final critical habitat and approximately $1.6 to $5.1 million (undiscounted dollars) over the next 20 years in areas proposed for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. These impacts would occur only if the area proposed for exclusion is instead designated as critical habitat. The cost estimates are based on the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11946), as well as the corrections we have identified above in subunits 3C, 3D, 3F, 4A, and 4B. The cost estimates assume that we are proposing to exclude 3 ac (1 ha) of federally owned lands in subunits 4A and 4C; we are not proposing to exclude any federally owned lands from this designation. We will address the costs associated with this last correction in more detail in the final economic analysis.
        Discounted future costs in areas proposed as final critical habitat are estimated to be approximately $0.4 to $2.1 million ($25,000 to $137,000 annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $0.3 to $1.5 million ($25,000 to $136,000 annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. In areas proposed for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation, the discounted future costs are estimated to be approximately $1.2 to $3.7 million ($77,000 to $253,000 annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or approximately $0.8 to $2.6 million ($72,000 to $248,000 annualized) over the next 20 years.

        Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we have determined that the proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia would not 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 draft economic analysis.
        Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the designation of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in 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 analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of the final rulemaking.

        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential development and dispersed recreational activities). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and thus will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.

        In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation (including those areas proposed for exclusion), we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of Acanthomintha ilicifolia and the proposed designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 4 and Appendices A, B, C, and F of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to three categories: development and HCP implementation; recreation management; and invasive, nonnative plant management.

        The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not considered small entities by the Small Business Administration. Two nonprofit organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM), are involved with conservation activities for Acanthomintha ilicifolia; however, the primary mission of both of these organizations is to preserve, restore, and protect natural resources. Therefore, impacts from species conservation on these organizations is not considered in the small business impacts analysis.
        Additionally, the boundaries of four city governments encompass portions of the proposed critical habitat—Carlsbad, Encinitas, San Diego, and Poway—with the remainder of the proposed critical habitat located within unincorporated San Diego County. All four cities and the County exceed the criteria to be considered a “small entity” under the RFA.
        The draft analysis identified 18 privately owned, undeveloped parcels within areas proposed as critical habitat. The 18 parcels are owned by 9 individual landowners. For the nine individual landowners that may be affected by the proposed designation of critical habitat, the DEA could not determine if any of these landowners qualify as small businesses. However, for the purposes of estimating potential costs associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat, the DEA determine that two landowners own four parcels that are in proposed subunits 3D, 3E, and 3F, and the remaining seven landowners own parcels in subunits we are proposing to exclude from the final designation.

        For the two landowners of proposed subunits 3D, 3E, and 3F, the DEA estimates annualized impacts associated with conservation activities for Acanthomintha ilicifolia could range from a low of $700 to $35,700, with an average range of annualized impact of $5,300 to $42,300 per landowner over the next 20 years. The remaining seven landowners of the 14 parcels in subunits we are proposing to exclude from the final designation, annualized impacts are estimated to range from a low of $300 in subunit 4D up to $18,700 in subunit 2C, with an average annualized impact ranging from $17,000 to $84,000.

        With only nine private landowners, it is not considered a substantial number. However, even if the landowners were to represent small development businesses, any developer directly impacted by the proposed designation of critical habitat would not be expected to bear the additional cost of conservation measures for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. We anticipate that additional costs that could arise from the designation would be passed on to individual homebuyers if the parcels were to be developed. Please refer to our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation of critical habitat would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined, and therefore, certify that, for the above reasons and based on currently available information, the proposed designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

        On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to its potentially raising novel legal and policy issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing E.O. 13211 that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on the information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Acanthomintha ilicifolia conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 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)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. 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 non-Federal 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) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the DEA, approximately 59 percent of the lands proposed as critical habitat are owned or managed by Federal, State, or local governments, none of which qualify as a small government. Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Executive Order 12630—Takings

        In accordance with E.O. 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 15, 2007.
          Todd Willens,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E7-22971 Filed 11-26-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 253
        RIN 0648-BC68
        Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Below Friant Dam in the San Joaquin River, CA

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings; correction.

          SUMMARY:
          On January 16, 2013, we, NMFS, published a proposed rule to designate a nonessential experimental population of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act in portions of the San Joaquin River and a notice of availability for the draft environmental assessment associated with this action. The proposed rule contained incorrect dates for two of our meetings. We announce new dates for public meetings on this action.

          DATES:

          The first meeting will be in Fresno, CA on January 29, 2013, at the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Board Meeting Room, 5469 E. Olive Avenue from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (The public should park in the front parking area (rear parking area closes at 5:30 p.m. with no exit after that time) and enter the door located on the west side of the front building). The second meeting will be in Los Banos, CA on January 30, 2013, at the Los Banos Community Center, 645 7th Street from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The third meeting will be in Chico, CA on February 5, 2013, at the Chico Masonic Family Center, 1110 West East Avenue from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0221 by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0221, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Elif Fehm-Sullivan, Fisheries Biologist, Protected Resources Division, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
          • Fax: (916) 930-3629.
          • Email: SJRspring.salmon@noaa.gov.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. You may access a copy of the draft EA by one of the following:
          • Visit NMFS' Reintroduction Web site at  http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/sjrrestorationprogram/salmonreintroduction.htm.

          • Call (916) 930-3723 and request to have a CD or hard copy mailed to you.
          • Obtain a CD or hard copy by visiting NMFS' Central Valley office at 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
          Please see the draft EA for additional information to comment on that document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elif Fehm-Sullivan, National Marine Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916-930-3723) or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301-427-8403).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On January 16, 2013 we, NMFS, published a proposed rule (78 FR 3381) to designate a nonessential experimental population of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act in portions of the San Joaquin River and a notice of availability for the draft environmental assessment associated with this action. The proposed rule contained incorrect dates for two of our meetings. Three public meetings will be held at which the public can make comments on the draft EA and proposed rule.
        Public Meetings
        The first meeting will be in Fresno, CA on January 29, 2013, at the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Board Meeting Room, 5469 E. Olive Avenue from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (The public should park in the front parking area (rear parking area closes at 5:30 p.m. with no exit after that time) and enter the door located on the west side of the front building). The second meeting will be in Los Banos, CA on January 30, 2013, at the Los Banos Community Center, 645 7th Street from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The third meeting will be in Chico, CA on February 5, 2013, at the Chico Masonic Family Center, 1110 West East Avenue from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.

          Dated: January 16, 2013.
          Helen Golde,
          Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-01343 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P