[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45592-45599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18760]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003]
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AW55


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Carex lutea (Golden Sedge)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the comment period on our March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080), 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Carex lutea (golden 
sedge) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We 
also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) 
associated with the proposed rule. In addition, in this document, we 
propose to enlarge two previously proposed subunits of critical habitat 
because we discovered that Carex lutea occupies an area at these two 
subunits that is greater than what we believed when we were preparing 
the March 10, 2010 proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period 
on the proposal for an additional 30 days to allow interested parties 
an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed 
critical habitat designation, the associated DEA, and our amended 
required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not 
be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final 
rule.

DATES: We will consider public comments received or postmarked on or 
before September 2, 2010. Please note that if you are using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) the deadline for 
submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings 
Time on this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2010-0003.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    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: Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 
33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726; by telephone 919-856-4520; or by 
facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat 
for Carex lutea that we published in the Federal Register on March 10, 
2010 (75 FR 11080), the two expanded subunits proposed as critical 
habitat and our amended required determinations section provided in 
this document, and the draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. 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 areas as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to Carex lutea from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and 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 Carex lutea;
     What areas containing features essential to the 
conservation of the species should be included in the designation and 
why;
     Special management considerations or protections for the 
physical and biological features essential to Carex lutea conservation 
that have been identified in the proposed rule that may be needed, 
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
     What areas not currently occupied by the species are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Specific information on Carex lutea and the habitat components 
(physical and biological features) essential to the conservation of 
this species.
    (4) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
this species.
    (5) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in 
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on the 
species and the proposed critical habitat.
    (6) 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 are subject to these impacts.
    (7) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from 
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering 
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    (8) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    (9) Information on the extent to which the description of potential 
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule, this document, or the DEA by one of the methods listed in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed critical 
habitat rule for Carex lutea that we

[[Page 45593]]

published on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080), you do not have to resubmit 
them. Your comments are included in the public record for this 
rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our 
final determination.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the website. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please 
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify 
any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and 
the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number: 
FWS-R4-ES-2010-0003, or by mail from the Raleigh Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Species Information

    Carex lutea is a perennial member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae). 
The species is endemic to the Black River section of the Coastal Plain 
Province of North Carolina. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 
(NCNHP) recognizes eight populations, all within a 16-by-5-mile (26-by-
8-kilometer) area, extending southwest from the community of Maple 
Hill.
    Carex lutea occurs in the Pine Savanna (Very Wet Clay Variant) 
natural community type characterized by an open to sparse canopy 
dominated by pond pine (Pinus serotina), and usually with some longleaf 
pine (P. palustris) and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens).
    Carex lutea is threatened by fire suppression; habitat alteration, 
such as land conversion for residential, commercial, or industrial 
development; mining; drainage for silviculture and agriculture; highway 
expansion; and herbicide use along utility and highway rights-of-way.

Previous Federal Actions

    We listed Carex lutea as an endangered species on January 23, 2002 
(67 FR 3120). We found that the designation of critical habitat was not 
prudent in the proposed listing rule (64 FR 44470, August 16, 1999). 
Upon reconsideration, we found that a critical habitat designation was 
prudent in the final listing rule (67 FR 3120, January 23, 2002); 
however, at that time, we deferred proposal of critical habitat due to 
budgetary and workload constraints.
    On December 19, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the 
Service's continuing failure to timely designate critical habitat for 
this species as well as three other plant species (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, C-04-3240 JL (N. D. Cal.)). In a 
settlement agreement dated April 11, 2008, the Service agreed to submit 
for publication in the Federal Register a proposed designation of 
critical habitat, if prudent and determinable, on or before February 
28, 2010, and a final determination by February 28, 2011. The Service 
determined that critical habitat was prudent for Carex lutea and 
published a proposed critical habitat designation on March 10, 2010 (75 
FR 11080).
    In total, approximately 189 acres (ac) (76 hectares (ha)) of land 
in Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina, fall within the areas 
that we proposed as critical habitat for this species on March 10, 
2010.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation--Amended

    Additional field surveys at two extant Carex lutea subpopulations 
indicate that the extent of the golden sedge at those sites is actually 
greater than what was originally believed (Suiter 2010, pers. obs.). 
These two areas contain all of the primary consitutent elements that 
were identified in our previously published critical habitat 
designation for Carex lutea. Therefore, we propose the following 
changes to units 5 and 8.

Proposed Changes to Unit 5, Onslow County, North Carolina

    Additional Carex lutea plants were found on the north side of the 
private sand road immediately adjacent to the area previously defined 
as subunit 5D (Sandy Run Savannas) in Onslow County, North Carolina. 
Due to their close proximity to each other, these plants are considered 
an extension of the subpopulation at subunit 5D. Although not 
discovered until 2010, it is extremely likely that this subpopulation 
was present at the time of listing. The area where the additional 
plants were found has been fire suppressed for several years, and it is 
believed that recent prescribed fires in the winter of 2010 opened this 
area to sunlight, allowing the Carex lutea plants to flourish. The fire 
also removed some thick, woody vegetation and allowed easy access for 
Service biologists to conduct surveys. This remnant pine savanna 
contains all of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) identified for 
Carex lutea.
    Excluding the roadbed, subunit 5D, which was 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) in our 
March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080), would increase by 4.6 ac 
(1.9 ha) to a total of 4.9 ac (2.0 ha) in size. Based on this new 
information and the adjustment to our previously proposed critical 
habitat areas, Unit 5, all of which is owned by the N.C. Division of 
Parks and Recreation and managed as the Sandy Run Savannas State 
Natural Area, would increase from 20.6 ac (8.3 ha) to 25.2 ac (10.2 ha) 
of proposed critical habitat.

Proposed Changes to Unit 8, Pender County, North Carolina

    The area we identified in our March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 
11080), as subunit 8C (McLean Savanna) in Pender County, North 
Carolina, is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a private 
company; however, TNC anticipates acquiring the privately owned section 
in the next 12 months. The Carex lutea plants in subunit 8C occupy an 
area larger than what was originally known (Suiter 2010, pers. obs.). 
Based on what we know about the biology of the species, we believe that 
the additional plants have been present for many years, but they were 
not discovered until May 2010, when the Service first thoroughly 
surveyed the site. Accordingly, the Service has expanded the area of 
proposed subunit 8C from 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) to 9.8 ac (4.0 ha), for an 
increase of 8.2 ac (3.3 ha). The revised proposed critical habitat area 
contains all of the PCEs identified for Carex lutea. Unit 8 would 
increase from 44.4 ac (17.9 ha) to 52.6 ac (21.3 ha) of proposed 
critical habitat.
    With the inclusion of these additional areas, the Service is now 
proposing 8 units (21 subunits) totaling approximately 201.8 ac (81.7 
ha) in Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina, as critical habitat 
for Carex lutea.
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance

[[Page 45594]]

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 
critical habitat are required to consult with us on the effects of 
their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Possible Exclusions from Critical Habitat and Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or 
any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. We 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. We have not proposed to 
exclude any areas from critical habitat for Carex lutea. However, the 
final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the 
best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, 
including information obtained during the comment period and 
information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we 
have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat 
designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
    The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Carex lutea that we published in the Federal Register 
on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11080) and the two additional areas proposed 
in this document. The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all 
potential conservation efforts for Carex lutea, some of which will 
likely be incurred whether or not we designate critical habitat. The 
economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is 
analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and 
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether we designate 
critical habitat. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the 
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the 
costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when 
evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis forecasts both baseline and 
incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed 
designation of critical habitat.
    The DEA describes economic impacts of Carex lutea conservation 
efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) 
Residential development, (2) silviculture activities, and (3) 
transportation and utilities projects. The DEA estimates that no 
economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical 
habitat for Carex lutea. This determination is based on the fact that 
more than 80 percent of the proposed critical habitat is already 
subject to conservation measures that benefit the plant. Economic 
impacts are unlikely in the remaining 20 percent, given the limited 
potential for future economic activity and the low probability of a 
Federal nexus that would require consultation with the Service.
    The DEA also discusses the potential benefits associated with the 
designation of critical habitat. The primary intended benefit of 
critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species, such as Carex lutea. Quantification and 
monetization of species conservation benefits requires information on 
the incremental change in the probability of Carex lutea conservation 
that is expected to result from the designation. As described in the 
DEA, modifications to future projects are unlikely given the extensive 
baseline protections already provided to Carex lutea habitat and the 
lack of anticipated economic activity and a Federal nexus on privately-
owned, unprotected parcels.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our March 10, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11080), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now 
made use of the DEA data in making this determination. In this 
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning: 
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866), E.O. 12630 (Takings), 
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice 
Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-
Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 
22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are updating our required 
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and 
E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), 
as described below. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is 
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis 
for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on 
comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of a 
final rulemaking.
    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 manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities

[[Page 45595]]

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 
Carex lutea 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 and commercial 
development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our 
agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each 
industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small 
entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; 
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.
    If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, Federal 
agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their 
activities may affect designated critical habitat. In areas where Carex 
lutea is present, Federal agencies would also be required to consult 
with us under section 7 of the Act, due to the endangered status of the 
species. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the same consultation 
process.
    In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related 
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. The 
DEA estimates that no economic impacts are likely to result from the 
designation of critical habitat for Carex lutea. This determination is 
based on the fact that more than 80 percent of the proposed critical 
habitat is already subject to conservation measures that benefit the 
plant. Economic impacts are unlikely in the remaining 20 percent, given 
the limited potential for future economic activity and the low 
probability of a Federal nexus that would require consultation with the 
Service. Based on that analysis, no impacts to small entities are 
expected as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation. 
Please refer to Appendix A of the DEA of the proposed critical habitat 
designation for a more detailed discussion of our analysis.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the 
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the 
reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information, 
we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 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 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This revised rule would 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 jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, 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 
onto State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Carex lutea, we do not believe that this rule would 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not 
produce a federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that 
is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Refrom Act . The lands being proposed for critical habitat 
designation are owned by private individuals, The Nature Conservancy 
and the State of North Carolina (Division of Parks and Recreation, 
Department of Transportation and Wildlife Resources Commission). None 
of these government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' The DEA also identified no cost resulting from the 
critical habitat designation. Because no incremental costs are 
anticipated, no small entities are expected to be affected by the rule. 
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

[[Page 45596]]

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use) 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. 
The OMB's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine 
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when 
compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in Appendix A, the DEA 
finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. The 
DEA concludes that since no modifications are anticipated to result 
from the designation of critical habitat, energy-related impacts are 
not expected. Since no incremental impacts are forecast associated 
specifically with this rulemaking on the production, distribution, or 
use of energy, designation of critical habitat for Carex lueta is not 
expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in 
electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production 
or distribution). A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation

.Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended at 75 FR 11080 (March 10, 2010), as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Critical habitat for Carex lutea (golden sedge) in Sec.  17.96, 
which was proposed to be added to paragraph (a) on March 10, 2010, at 
75 FR 11080, is proposed to be amended by revising the maps in 
paragraphs (5), (10)(vi), and (13)(iv), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

 (a) Flowering plants.

* * * * *

Family Cyperaceae: Carex lutea (golden sedge)

* * * * *
    (5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:

[[Page 45597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.956

* * * * *
    (10) * * *
* * * * *
    (vi) Map of Unit 5 (Sandy Run Savannas) follows:

[[Page 45598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.957

* * * * *
    (13) * * *
* * * * *
    (iv) Map of Unit 8 (McLean Savanna) follows:

[[Page 45599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU10.958

* * * * *

    Dated: July 20, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
[FR Doc. 2010-18760 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S