Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

41694

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
scenario may overstate the number of small entities likely to be affected by the rule and may understate the potential impact per entity. Under Scenario 1, we estimate that eight small entities have the potential to bear an impact of $1,000
to $1,800 per entity.
2 Scenario 2 assumes all future costs to an industry are borne by a single small entity within that industry. This scenario may understate the number of small entities affected and overstate the per-entity impacts. As such, this scenario arrives at a low-end estimate of potentially affected entities and a highend estimate of potential economic cost effects. Under this scenario, one small entity in the in-water construction industry would bear costs of $6,000.
Because the analysis assumes a maximum of one consultation on both renewable energy development and seismic surveying in a single year, the cost estimates for these activities are identical under both scenarios $1,200
for one small entity in the renewable energy development industry and $1,800 for one small entity in the seismic survey industry. However, for in-water construction and dredging, these scenarios reflect a range of potentially affected entities and associated revenue effects. The actual number of small in-water construction entities affected, and the per-entity revenue effects are likely to be somewhere in the middle. In other words, some subset greater than one and less than 6 of the in-water construction small entities may participate in the section 7 consultations and bear the associated impacts.
Under both scenarios, potential costs borne by small entities are expected to be minor. Ultimately, up to eight small entities per year may bear costs associated with participation in consultation regarding the proposed expansion of critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whale. The total annualized administrative costs that may be borne by these small entities businesses or governments is $9,000 discounted at 7 percent.
The RFA, as amended by SBREFA, requires us to consider alternatives to the proposed regulation that will reduce the impacts to small entities. We considered an alternative of not expanding critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales within their coastal range because it would impose none of the additional economic, national security, or other relevant impacts described in the FEA IEc 2021
or the Final ESA Section 4b2 Report.
Under this alternative, Southern Resident killer whales would continue to receive protections provided under
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:36 Jul 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

the ESA, the existing critical habitat, as well as other Federal, state, and local laws. We rejected this alternative because we determined that the expanded critical habitat is prudent and determinable, and the ESA requires critical habitat designation in that circumstance. We also considered alternatives in which we designated all six of the identified specific areas i.e., no area excluded, or designated some subset of the specific areas i.e., some particular areas within the identified specific areas would be excluded. As described in our Final ESA Section 4b2 Report, we considered the economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts that would result from designation, and weighed the benefits of designation against the benefits of exclusion. Ultimately, we selected an alternative in which one particular area was excluded from the designation, the Navys Quinault Range Site off the coast of Washington and a 10-km buffer around a portion of it, because we considered impacts to national security outweighed the benefits of designating critical habitat there.
Coastal Zone Management Act Under section 307c1A of the Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
16 U.S.C. 1456c1A and its implementing regulations, each Federal activity within or outside the coastal zone that has reasonably foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State coastal management programs. We have determined that this revision of the critical habitat designation for Southern Resident killer whales is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved Coastal Zone Management Programs of Washington, Oregon, and California. This determination was submitted to the responsible agencies in the aforementioned states for review. The Washington Department of Ecology and California Coastal Commission responded to confirm consistency with their coastal management programs.
Paperwork Reduction Act The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government. This final rule does not contain any new or
PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

revised collection of information. This rule would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the following findings:
a This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both Federal intergovernmental mandates and Federal private sector mandates. The designation of critical habitat does not impose an enforceable duty on nonFederal government entities or private parties. The only regulatory effect of a critical habitat designation is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under ESA section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive funding, assistance, or permits from Federal agencies or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, but the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply. Nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above to state governments.
b Due to the prohibition against take of Southern Resident killer whales both within and outside of the designated areas, we do not anticipate that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Information Quality Act and Peer Review Pursuant to the Information Quality Act section 515 of Pub. L. 106554, this information product has undergone a pre-dissemination review by NMFS.
The signed Pre-dissemination Review and Documentation Form is on file with the NMFS West Coast Regional Office in Seattle, Washington see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
On December 16, 2004, OMB issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review Bulletin. The Bulletin
E:FRFM02AUR2.SGM

02AUR2