Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

38574

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Service spent approximately $75,500 to reprint the critical habitat designations at 50 CFR 17.96 for the most-recent print edition of the CFR. Based on a review of the print edition of the CFR, we estimate that this rule will remove approximately 179 pages of the relevant CFR volume, amounting to a savings of approximately $14,320 per year in printing costs for the Service. Over many years, eliminating the need to reprint Universal Transverse Mercator UTM coordinate pairs and other textual descriptions at 50 CFR 17.96
will result in a considerable cumulative cost savings for the Service and the public as a whole. The detailed UTM
coordinates or other textual descriptions we are removing in this rule will continue to be available online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal see ADDRESSES and at the lead Service field office responsible for the designation to assist the public in understanding the official boundary.
We note that the Service never maintained that requiring detailed textual descriptions was legally necessary. Instead, the first critical habitat regulations required only that critical habitat designations be accompanied by maps and/or geographical descriptions 43 FR 870
876 Jan. 4, 1978. Although the Service subsequently added the requirement that critical habitat designations include textual descriptions describing the specific boundary limits of the critical habitat, there is nothing in the preamble to that rule indicating that the Service did so because the Act required it.
Rather, it was in response to several commenters, who had opined that the proposed rule was not sufficiently clear in setting out the method by which critical habitat boundaries would be described 45 FR 13009, 13015 Feb. 27, 1980.
Removing these unnecessary textual descriptions will significantly reduce the length of some critical habitat designations, making each designation easier to locate in the CFR; will not weaken the effectiveness of the Act; and will not undermine the publics ability to identify the boundaries of critical habitat designations.
The information printed in the CFR is the legally binding delineation of critical habitat. If there is ambiguity due to the scale of the map such that additional regulatory text is needed to ensure that the public has adequate notice of the boundaries, we provide additional regulation text. The only change to the CFR that we are making with this action is removing the detailed textual description of the boundaries of the specific areas designated as critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Jul 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

habitat e.g., latitude-longitude and UTM coordinates. We still generate those data and make them available at http www.regulations.gov and at the lead field office of the Service responsible for the critical habitat designation. Neither the critical habitat designation nor the underlying data on which it is based can be changed without undergoing a further rulemaking.
As stated earlier, the actions we are taking in this rule do not increase, decrease, or otherwise alter the critical habitat boundaries or areas. For 50 CFR
17.96a, we are merely removing the reference points e.g., UTM or latitudelongitude coordinates of the textual descriptions from existing final critical habitat designations, and we are doing so only where we have determined that the existing maps are sufficient to inform the public of the boundaries of the designations and can therefore stand as the official delineation of critical habitat. However, we will continue to provide the reference points of the textual descriptions at http
www.regulations.gov and at the lead field office of the Service responsible for the critical habitat designation.
The actions we are taking in this rule require us to also revise 50 CFR
17.94b, to set forth an explanation of which critical habitat designations have maps that stand as the official delineation of critical habitat and which do not.
We are publishing this final rule without a prior proposal because we find that there is good cause for doing so pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553b3B. The good cause exception applies when an agency finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Publication of a proposed rule for this action is unnecessary because this is an administrative action that does not increase, decrease, or otherwise change critical habitat boundaries or areas. Therefore, this action will not affect any legal rights. Rather, it will merely reduce the publication length of some rules designating critical habitat, which will save taxpayer resources and make each designation easier to locate in the CFR. We find that it is in the best interest of the public to promulgate these administrative and technical changes to 50 CFR 17.96 without undergoing procedures that are unnecessary.

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O.
12866 while calling for improvements in the nations regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 SBREFA, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions.
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, 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 such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
E:FRFM22JYR1.SGM

22JYR1