44078 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules

PART 246—QUALITY ASSURANCE (b) The Contractor shall provide DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR notification, in accordance with paragraph (c) 2. Section 246.101 is amended by of this clause, of— Fish and Wildlife Service adding a definition of ‘‘Replenishment (1) All technical nonconformances for part’’ to read as follows: replenishment parts identified as critical 50 CFR Part 17 safety items acquired by the Government 246.101 Definitions. RIN 1018–AT84 under this contract; and * * * * * (2) All nonconformances or deficiencies Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Replenishment part, as used in this that may result in a safety impact for systems, subpart, means a repairable or and Plants; Proposed Designation of or subsystems, assemblies, subassemblies, or Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River consumable part, purchased after parts integral to a system, acquired by or provisioning of that part, for— Basin Population of the Arkansas serviced for the Government under this River Shiner (1) Replacement; contract. (2) Replenishment of stock; or (c) The Contractor shall notify the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (3) Use in the maintenance, overhaul, Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) Interior. or repair of equipment. and the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) ACTION: 3. Section 246.371 is added to read as Proposed rule; notice of within 72 hours after discovering or follows: availability of draft economic analysis acquiring credible information concerning and draft environmental assessment, 246.371 Notification of potential safety nonconformances and deficiencies described and notice of public hearings. issues. in paragraph (b) of this clause. SUMMARY: (a) Use the clause at 252.246–7XXX, (1) The notification shall include— We, the U.S. Fish and Notification of Potential Safety Issues, (i) A summary of the defect or Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic in solicitations and contracts for the nonconformance; analysis and draft environmental acquisition of— (ii) A chronology of pertinent events; (1) Replenishment parts identified as (iii) The identification of potentially assessment for the proposal to designate critical safety items; affected items to the extent known at the time critical habitat for the Arkansas River (2) Systems and subsystems, of notification; Basin population of the Arkansas River assemblies, and subassemblies integral (iv) A point of contact to coordinate shiner ( girardi) under the to a system; or problem analysis and resolution; and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), (3) Repair, maintenance, logistics (v) Any other relevant information. as amended. The draft economic support, or overhaul services for (2) The Contractor may provide the analysis finds that, over the next 20 systems and subsystems, assemblies, notification in writing or telephonically. years, costs associated with Arkansas and subassemblies integral to a system. However, the Contractor shall provide a River shiner conservation activities are (b) Follow the procedures at PGI confirming written notification, that includes forecast to range from $9 to $11 million 246.371 for the handling of notifications the information required by paragraph (c)(1) per year. In constant dollars, the draft received under the clause at 252.246– of this clause, to the ACO and the PCO economic analysis estimates there will 7XXX. within 72 hours after a telephonic be an economic impact of $198 million notification. As further information becomes over the next 20 years. The greatest PART 252—SOLICITATION available, the Contractor shall also provide economic impacts are expected to occur PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT that information to the ACO and the PCO. to concentrated feeding CLAUSES (d) The Contractor is responsible for the operations, oil and gas production, and notification of potential safety issues water management activities, in that 4. Section 252.246–7XXX is added to occurring with regard to an item furnished by order. Comments previously submitted read as follows: any subcontractor. However— on the October 6, 2004, proposed rule 252.246–7XXX Notification of Potential (1) The subcontractor shall provide the (69 FR 59859) during both the initial Safety Issues. notification required by paragraph (c) of this and extended comment periods (April As prescribed in 246.371(a), use the clause to— 28, 2005, 70 FR 21987), need not be following clause: (i) The Contractor or the appropriate resubmitted as they have been higher-tier subcontractor; and incorporated into the public record and Notification of Potential Safety Issues (XXX (ii) The ACO and the PCO, if the will be fully considered in preparation 2005) subcontractor is aware of the ACO and the of the final rule. We will hold three (a) Definitions. As used in this clause— PCO for the contract; and public informational sessions and Critical safety item means a part, (2) The Contractor shall facilitate direct hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES subassembly, assembly, subsystem, communication between the Government and sections). installation equipment, or support equipment the subcontractor as necessary. DATES: for a system that contains a characteristic, (e) Notification of safety issues under this Comments must be submitted any failure, malfunction, or absence of which clause shall be considered neither an directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES could cause a catastrophic or critical failure admission of responsibility nor a release of section) on or before August 31, 2005 of resulting in the loss of or serious damage to liability for the defect or its consequences. this document, or at the public hearings. the system or an unacceptable risk of This clause does not affect any right of the We will hold public informational personal injury or loss of life. Government or the Contractor established sessions from 4 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Safety impact means the occurrence of followed by a public hearing from 7 death, permanent total disability, permanent elsewhere in this contract. (f) The Contractor shall include this clause, p.m. to 9 p.m., on the following dates: partial disability, or injury or occupational 1. August 15, 2005: Oklahoma City, illness requiring hospitalization; loss of a including this paragraph (f), in all subcontracts issued under this contract. Oklahoma; weapon system; or property damage 2. August 17, 2005: Amarillo, ; exceeding $200,000. (End of clause) Subcontractor means any supplier, 3. August 18, 2005: Liberal, Kansas. distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes [FR Doc. 05–15156 Filed 7–29–05; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Meetings: The public supplies or services to or for the Contractor BILLING CODE 5001–08–P informational sessions and hearings will or another subcontractor under this contract. be held at the following locations:

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:25 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 44079

1. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: scientific community, industry, or any requirements for the shiner downstream Conservation Education Center other interested party concerning the of Sanford Dam. Auditorium, Oklahoma City Zoological proposed rule, the draft economic Our practice is to make comments, Park, 2101 NE 50th Street, Oklahoma analysis, and the draft environmental including names and home addresses of City, Oklahoma, 73111; assessment. On the basis of public respondents, available for public review 2. Amarillo, Texas: Auditorium, Texas comment, during the development of during regular business hours. A&M Agricultural Experiment Station, our final determination, we may find Individual respondents may request that 6500 Amarillo Boulevard West, that areas proposed are not essential, are we withhold their home addresses from Amarillo, Texas, 79106; and appropriate for exclusion under section the rulemaking record, which we will 3. Liberal, Kansas: Meeting Rooms, 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate honor to the extent allowable by law. Seward County Activities Center, 810 for exclusion. We particularly seek There also may be circumstances in Stadium Road, Liberal, Kansas, 67901. comments concerning: which we would withhold from the Disabled persons needing reasonable (1) The reasons why any habitat rulemaking record a respondent’s accommodations in order to attend and should or should not be determined to identity, as allowable by law. If you participate in the public hearing should be critical habitat as provided by section wish us to withhold your name and/or contact Jerry Brabander, Field 4 of the Act, including whether the address, you must state this Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological benefits of designation will outweigh prominently at the beginning of your Services Field Office, at the phone any threats to the species resulting from comment. However, we will not number and address below as soon as designation; consider anonymous comments. We possible. In order to allow sufficient (2) Specific information on the will make all submissions from time to process requests, please call no distribution of the Arkansas River organizations or businesses, and from later than 3 days before the hearing. shiner, the amount and distribution of individuals identifying themselves as Information regarding this proposal is the species’ habitat, and which habitat representatives or officials of available in alternative formats upon is essential to the conservation of the organizations or businesses, available request. species, and why; for public inspection in their entirety. If you wish to comment on the (3) Land-use designations and current Comments and materials received will proposed rule, draft economic analysis, or planned activities in the subject area be available for public inspection, by or draft environmental assessment, you and their possible impacts on the appointment, during normal business may submit your comments and species or proposed critical habitat; hours at the above address. If you wish to comment, you may materials by any one of several methods: (4) Whether our approach to listing or submit your comments and materials 1. You may submit written comments critical habitat designation could be concerning this proposal by any one of and information by mail or hand- improved or modified in any way to several methods (see ADDRESSES delivery to the Oklahoma Ecological provide for greater public participation section). Please submit electronic Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and understanding, or to assist us in Service, 222 South Houston, Tulsa, comments in ASCII file format and accommodating public concerns and avoid the use of special characters or Oklahoma 74127–8909. comments; 2. Written comments may be sent by any form of encryption. Please also (5) Any foreseeable economic, include your name and return address facsimile to 918–581–7467. environmental, or other impacts 3. You may send your comments by in the body of your message. If you do resulting from the proposed designation not receive a confirmation from the electronic mail (e-mail) to of critical habitat or coextensively from [email protected]. For directions on system that we have received your the proposed listing, and in particular, Internet message, contact us directly by how to submit electronic filing of any impacts on small entities or comments, see the ‘‘Public Comments calling our Oklahoma Ecological families; Services Field Office at (918) 581–7458. Solicited’’ section below. (6) Whether the economic analysis You may obtain copies of the draft identifies all State and local costs. If not, Background economic analysis and draft what other costs should be included; On October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859), we environmental assessment by mail or by (7) Whether the economic analysis proposed to designate as critical habitat visiting our Web site at http:// makes appropriate assumptions a total of approximately 2,002 ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahoma/shiner.htm. regarding current practices and likely kilometers (1,244 miles) of linear You may review comments and regulatory changes imposed as a result distance of rivers, including 91.4 meters materials received, and review of the listing of the species or the (300 feet) of adjacent riparian areas supporting documentation used in designation of critical habitat; measured laterally from each bank. This preparation of this proposed rule, by (8) Whether the economic analysis distance includes areas that we are appointment, during normal business correctly assesses the effect on regional proposing to exclude that are discussed hours, at the above address. costs associated with land- and water- below. The areas that we have FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry use controls that derive from the determined to be essential to the Brabander, Field Supervisor, Oklahoma designation; conservation of the Arkansas River Office (telephone 918–581–7458; (9) Whether the designation will shiner include portions of the Canadian facsimile 918–581–7467). result in disproportionate economic River (often referred to as the South SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: impacts to specific areas that should be Canadian River) in New Mexico, Texas, evaluated for possible exclusion from and Oklahoma, the Beaver/North Public Comments Solicited the final designation; Canadian River of Oklahoma, the We intend that any final action (10) Whether the economic analysis Cimarron River in Kansas and resulting from this proposal will be as appropriately identifies all costs that Oklahoma, and the Arkansas River in accurate and as effective as possible. could result from the designation or Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Therefore, we solicit comments or coextensively from the listing; and In developing this proposal, we suggestions from the public, other (11) Any information as to possible evaluated those lands determined to be concerned governmental agencies, the costs associated with instream flow essential to the conservation of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:25 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1 44080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Arkansas River shiner to ascertain if any the high-end of this range assumes (OMB) has not formally reviewed the specific areas would be appropriate for upper-bound estimates for private proposed rule or accompanying exclusion from the final critical habitat agriculture and all other activities. The economic analysis. designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) total impact in constant dollars is $198 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 of the Act. On the basis of our million over the next 20 years. The total et seq.) preliminary evaluation, we believe that impacts in constant dollars are the the benefits of excluding the Beaver/ following for each of the economic Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act North Canadian River of Oklahoma and sectors impacted (from Exhibit ES–4a in (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the the Arkansas River in Arkansas, Kansas, executive summary of the draft Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Oklahoma from the final critical economic analysis): $7.3 to 20.4 million Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, habitat for the Arkansas River Shiner for administrative costs; $31.8 million whenever an agency is required to outweigh the benefits of their inclusion. for water operations; $28.6 to 57 million publish a notice of rulemaking for any On September 30, 2003, in a for oil and gas; $68.7 million for CAFOs; proposed or final rule, it must prepare complaint brought by the New Mexico $3.6 million for Federal farm assistance; and make available for public comment Cattle Growers Association and 16 other $5.9 million for grazing; $0.9 million for a regulatory flexibility analysis that plaintiffs, the U.S. District Court of New agricultural crops; $0.1 to $0.5 million describes the effect of the rule on small Mexico instructed us to propose critical for transportation; and $9.3 million for entities (i.e., small businesses, small habitat by September 30, 2004, and recreation. organizations, and small government publish a final rule by September 30, As noted in our proposed rule, in jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 2005. The proposed rule was signed on developing critical habitat designations, flexibility analysis is required if the September 30, 2004, and published in we have also recognized under section head of an agency certifies the rule will the Federal Register on October 6, 2004 4(b)(2) partnerships and conservation not have a significant economic impact (69 FR 59859). Additional background programs or efforts that provide a on a substantial number of small information is available in the October conservation benefit to the subject entities. As noted above, in our 6, 2004, proposed rule. species. In the case of Arkansas River proposed rule we withheld our Critical habitat identifies specific shiner, it is our intent to recognize determination of whether this areas that are essential to the future conservation efforts. In this designation would result in a significant conservation of a listed species and that regard we have met with the Arkansas effect as defined under SBREFA until may require special management River Shiner Coalition (Coalition), we completed our draft economic considerations or protection. If the whose mission is to ease the regulatory analysis of the proposed designation so proposed rule is made final, section 7 of burdens of designated critical habitat for that we would have the factual basis for the Act will prohibit adverse its members and to work with the our determination. According to the Small Business modification of critical habitat by any Service toward the eventual recovery of Administration (SBA), small entities activity funded, authorized, or carried the Arkansas River shiner. The Coalition include small organizations, such as out by any Federal agency. Federal represents several agricultural and independent nonprofit organizations, agencies proposing actions affecting ranching associations, water service and small governmental jurisdictions, areas designated as critical habitat must providers, groundwater conservation including school boards and city and consult with us on the effects of their districts, and other groups in Texas, proposed actions, pursuant to section town governments that serve fewer than Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The 50,000 residents, as well as small 7(a)(2) of the Act. Coalition has developed an Arkansas Section 4 of the Act requires that we businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small River shiner management plan and consider economic and other relevant businesses include manufacturing and intends to submit it to us during the impacts prior to making a final decision mining concerns with fewer than 500 on what areas to designate as critical current comment period. If we receive a employees, wholesale trade entities habitat. We are announcing the plan from the Coalition, we will with fewer than 100 employees, retail availability of a draft economic analysis evaluate the conservation measures and service businesses with less than $5 and draft environmental assessment for being provided to or planned for the million in annual sales, general and the proposal to designate certain areas Arkansas River shiner when making our heavy construction businesses with less as critical habitat for the Arkansas River final determination of critical habitat, than $27.5 million in annual business, shiner. We may revise the proposal, or and we may exclude areas pursuant to special trade contractors doing less than its supporting documents, to section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we find that $11.5 million in annual business, and incorporate or address new information the benefits of their exclusion outweigh agricultural businesses with annual received during the comment period. In the benefits of their inclusion. sales less than $750,000. To determine particular, we may exclude an area from Required Determinations—Amended if potential economic impacts to these critical habitat if we determine that the small entities are significant, we benefits of excluding the area outweigh Regulatory Planning and Review considered the types of activities that the benefits of including the area as In accordance with Executive Order might trigger regulatory impacts under critical habitat, provided such exclusion 12866, this document is a significant this designation as well as types of will not result in the extinction of the rule because it may raise novel legal and project modifications that may result. In species. policy issues. However, based on our general, the term significant economic Costs related to conservation activities draft economic analysis, it is not impact is meant to apply to a typical for the proposed Arkansas River shiner anticipated that the proposed small business firm’s business critical habitat pursuant to sections 4, 7, designation of critical habitat for the operations. and 10 of the Act are estimated to be Arkansas River shiner will result in an To determine if the proposed approximately $9 to $11 million dollars annual effect on the economy of $100 designation of critical habitat for the on an annualized basis. The low end of million or more or affect the economy Arkansas River shiner would affect a this range assumes zero impact to in a material way. Due to the timeline substantial number of small entities, we private agricultural activities and lower- for publication in the Federal Register, considered the number of small entities bound estimates for all other activities; the Office of Management and Budget affected within particular types of

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:25 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 44081

economic activities (e.g., concentrated overstate rather than understate costs) portion of each ranch which could be animal feeding operations, oil and gas, regarding the number and type of impacted by the designation). If each agriculture, livestock grazing, and project modifications required of CAFO affected ranch is small, then recreation). We considered each facilities as summarized in Section 6 of approximately 20 to 43 ranches industry or category individually to the draft economic analysis. annually could experience losses in determine if certification is appropriate. Oil and Gas Production Activities cattle grazing opportunities as a result of In estimating the numbers of small Arkansas River shiner conservation entities potentially affected, we also Project modifications to oil and gas activities on non-Federal lands. This considered whether their activities have activities resulting from Arkansas River represents a small percentage (less than any Federal involvement; some kinds of shiner conservation activities will have one percent for the upper-bound activities are unlikely to have any minimal effects on small oil and gas and estimate) of beef cow operations in Federal involvement and so will not be pipeline businesses in counties that those States where habitat is proposed affected by the designation of critical contain proposed Arkansas River shiner for designation. habitat. Designation of critical habitat habitat. Impacts are expected to be only affects activities conducted, limited to additional costs of Recreation funded, permitted or authorized by compliance for oil and gas projects. As detailed in Section 9 of the draft Federal agencies; non-Federal activities Assuming that each potentially economic analysis, limitations on off are not affected by the designation. impacted well and pipeline represent road vehicle (ORV) use at the Rosita If this proposed critical habitat individual well and pipeline businesses, ORV area within Lake Meredith designation is made final, Federal annual compliance costs are roughly National Recreation Area in Hutchinson agencies must consult with us if their 0.14 percent of estimated 1997 revenues County, Texas, during the months of activities may affect designated critical for potentially impacted small oil and July to September may result in up to habitat. Consultations to avoid the gas well production businesses and 0.09 23,299 lost visitor days annually. These destruction or adverse modification of percent of estimated 1997 revenues for lost visitor days represent 2.4 percent of critical habitat would be incorporated potentially impacted small pipeline the three-year average of total visitor into the existing consultation process. businesses in these counties. As noted trips to Lake Meredith National In our draft economic analysis of this in the draft economic analysis, 1997 Recreation Area (2002 to 2004), and proposed designation, we evaluated the revenue data is the most current roughly 25 percent of annual ORV potential economic effects on small available data from the visitor trips to Rosita from 2000 to 2004. business entities and small governments Economic Census. Recreation-related sales generated by resulting from conservation actions Agriculture small businesses in Hutchinson County, related to the listing of this species and Texas, are estimated at $88.5 million. proposed designation of its critical While Arkansas River shiner Thus, the total annual impact of habitat. We evaluated small business conservation activities have not reduced consumer expenditure ($897,00 entities in five categories: Concentrated impacted private crop production since to $1.3 million annually) is equivalent animal feeding operations, oil and gas, the listing of the species in 1998, the to 1.0 to 1.5 percent of small business agriculture, livestock grazing, and draft economic analysis considers that recreation. The following summary of farmers may make decisions that lead to revenues of affected industries in the information contained in Appendix reductions in crop production within Hutchinson County. While small A of the draft economic analysis proposed critical habitat. Section 7 of business impacts are likely to be provides the basis for our the draft economic analysis presents a minimal at the county level, some determination. scenario in which farmers choose to individual small businesses may retire agricultural land from production experience greater impacts. However, Concentrated Animal Feeding in order to avoid section 9 take of the data to identify which businesses will Operations (CAFOs) species (‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, be affected or to estimate specific Arkansas River shiner conservation pursue, or collect, or attempt to engage impacts to individual small businesses activities have the potential to affect in any such conduct). The screening are not available. approximately 67 of the 4,125 small analysis estimates that up to 14 small Based on this data we have animal feeding businesses (roughly 1.6 farms in States that contain proposed determined that this proposed percent) located within States that Arkansas River shiner habitat could be designation would not affect a contain proposed shiner habitat and impacted under this scenario. This substantial number of small businesses impacted CAFOs (Oklahoma, Texas, and represents a small percentage (less than involved in concentrated animal feeding Kansas). The watersheds with highest one percent) of total farm operations in operations, oil and gas, agriculture, potential impacts to small CAFOs are these States. livestock grazing, and recreation. the Lower Canadian (Unit 1b of Further, we have determined that this proposed critical habitat) and the Lower Livestock Grazing proposed designation would also not Cimarron-Skeleton (Unit 3 of proposed Limitations on livestock grazing may result in a significant effect to the critical habitat). Impacts are possible in impact ranchers in the region. As annual sales of those small businesses the form of additional compliance costs discussed in Section 7 of the draft impacted by this proposed designation. related to a number of potential economic analysis, Arkansas River As such, we are certifying that this requirements, including increased shiner conservation activities could proposed designation of critical habitat storage capacity in wastewater retention result in a reduction in the level of would not result in a significant structures and various monitoring and grazing effort within proposed Arkansas economic impact on a substantial testing activities. These compliance River shiner habitat on non-Federal number of small entities. Please refer to costs may lead to financial stress at up lands. On non-Federal lands, however, Appendix A of our draft economic to 33 facilities. Upper-bound estimates impacts are uncertain, because maps analysis of this designation for a more of potential impacts result from describing the overlap of privately detailed discussion of potential conservative assumptions (that is, grazed lands and the proposed economic impacts to small business assumptions that are intended to designation are not available (i.e., that entities.

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:25 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1 44082 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Executive Order 13211 assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty (b) The economic analysis discusses arising from participation in a voluntary On May 18, 2001, the President issued potential impacts of critical habitat Federal program,’’ unless the regulation Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on designation for the Arkansas River ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal regulations that significantly affect shiner including administrative costs, program under which $500,000,000 or energy supply, distribution, and use. water management activities, oil and gas more is provided annually to State, E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare activities, concentrated animal feeding local, and tribal governments under Statements of Energy Effects when operations, agriculture, and entitlement authority,’’ if the provision undertaking certain actions. The transportation. The analysis estimates would ‘‘increase the stringency of that annual costs of the rule could range proposed rule is considered a significant conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due from $12.7 to $16.3 million per year. upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Concentrated animal feeding operations to it potentially raising novel legal and Government’s responsibility to provide policy issues, but it is not expected to (CAFOs), oil and gas production, and funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal water management activities are significantly affect energy supplies, governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust expected to experience the greatest distribution, or use. Appendix B of the accordingly. (At the time of enactment, economic impacts related to shiner draft economic analysis provides a these entitlement programs were: conservation activities, in that order of detailed discussion and analysis of this Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child determination. Specifically, three Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services relevant impact. Impacts on small criteria were determined to be relevant Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation governments are not anticipated, or they to this analysis: (1) Reductions in crude State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption are anticipated to be passed through to oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels Assistance, and Independent Living; consumers. For example, costs to per day (bbls); (2) reductions in natural Family Support Welfare Services; and CAFOs would be expected to be passed gas production in excess of 25 million Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal on to consumers in the form of price Mcf per year; and (3) increases in the private sector mandate’’ includes a changes. Consequently, for the reasons cost of energy production in excess of regulation that ‘‘would impose an discussed above, we do not believe that one percent. The draft economic enforceable duty upon the private the designation of critical habitat for the analysis determines that the oil and gas sector, except (i) a condition of Federal Arkansas River shiner will significantly industry is not likely to experience ‘‘a assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from or uniquely affect small government significant adverse effect’’ as a result of participation in a voluntary Federal entities. As such, a Small Government Arkansas River shiner conservation program.’’ Agency Plan is not required. activities. Therefore, this action is not a The designation of critical habitat significant action and no Statement of does not impose a legally binding duty Takings Energy Effects is required. on non-Federal Government entities or In accordance with Executive Order Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 private parties. Under the Act, the only 12630 (‘‘Government Actions and U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) regulatory effect is that Federal agencies Interference with Constitutionally must ensure that their actions do not In accordance with the Unfunded Protected Private Property Rights’’), we destroy or adversely modify critical have analyzed the potential takings Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), habitat under section 7. Non-Federal implications of proposing critical the Service makes the following entities that receive Federal funding, habitat for the Arkansas River shiner in findings: assistance, permits, or otherwise require a takings implications assessment. The (a) This rule will not produce a approval or authorization from a Federal Federal mandate. In general, a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly takings implications assessment mandate is a provision in legislation, impacted by the designation of critical concludes that this proposed statute, or regulation that would impose habitat. However, the legally binding designation of critical habitat for the an enforceable duty upon State, local, or duty to avoid destruction or adverse Arkansas River shiner does not pose tribal governments, or the private sector, modification of critical habitat rests significant takings implications. and includes both ‘‘Federal squarely on the Federal agency. Authority: The authority for this action is intergovernmental mandates’’ and Furthermore, to the extent that non- the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ Federal entities are indirectly impacted U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. because they receive Federal assistance Dated: July 21, 2005. 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental or participate in a voluntary Federal aid mandate’’ includes a regulation that program, the Unfunded Mandates Craig Manson, ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty Reform Act would not apply; nor would Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and upon State, local, or tribal critical habitat shift the costs of the large Parks. governments,’’ with two exceptions. It entitlement programs listed above on to [FR Doc. 05–15164 Filed 7–29–05; 8:45 am] excludes ‘‘a condition of federal State governments. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:25 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1