[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29150-29154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11731]



[[Page 29150]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0040; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ79


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor and Varronia 
rupicola

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the October 22, 2013, 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Agave eggersiana (no 
common name), Gonocalyx concolor (no common name), and Varronia 
rupicola (no common name) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
these species and an amended required determinations section of the 
proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, 
the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. 
Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be 
fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
June 20, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

ADDRESSES:
    Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule 
and associated documents on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
at Docket No. FWS- R4-ES-2013-0040 or by mail from the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal 
and associated draft economic analysis by searching for Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2013-0040, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal 
and associated DEA by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0040; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. 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: Marelisa Rivera, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, 
Road 301 Km. 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, Puerto Rico 00622; by telephone 
(787-851-7297), or by facsimile (787-851-7440). 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 our proposed designation of critical habitat 
for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola that 
was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 
62529), our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required 
determinations provided in this document. 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 there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx 
concolor, and Varronia rupicola (which we refer to collectively as the 
three Caribbean plants) and their habitat;
    (b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that 
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we 
should include in the designation and why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) 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 probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the three Caribbean plants and proposed critical 
habitat.
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small 
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the 
proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
    (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic 
impacts.
    (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the 
DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, 
would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the 
proposed critical habitat designation.
    (8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat 
designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific 
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (9) 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.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 
FR 62529) during the initial comment period from October 22, 2013, to 
December 23, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate 
them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will 
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our 
final

[[Page 29151]]

determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into 
consideration all written comments and any additional information we 
receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, 
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.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that 
you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    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. 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.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0040, or by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological 
Services Field 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-2013-0040, or by 
mail from the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx 
concolor, and Varronia rupicola in this document. For more information 
on previous Federal actions concerning the three Caribbean plants, 
refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62529). For more 
information on the three Caribbean plants or its habitat, refer to the 
proposed listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 22, 
2013 (78 FR 62560), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0103) or from the 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 22, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia 
rupicola (78 FR 62529). Specifically, we proposed to designate 
approximately:
     20.5 hectares (ha) (50.6 acres (ac)) in 6 units as 
critical habitat for Agave eggersiana in St. Croix, USVI.
     80.1 ha (198 ac) in 2 units as critical habitat for 
Gonocalyx concolor in Puerto Rico.
     2,648 ha (6,548 ac) in 7 units as critical habitat for 
Varronia rupicola in Puerto Rico and Vieques Island.
    That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 23, 
2013.

Critical Habitat

    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 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 must consult with us on the effects of their 
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    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.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we 
consider, among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that 
an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act 
addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational 
benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in 
the recovery of the listed species, and any ancillary benefits 
triggered by existing local, State, or Federal laws as a result of the 
critical habitat designation.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to 
incentivize or result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, 
or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management 
plan. In the case of Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia 
rupicola, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of 
the presence of the three Caribbean plants and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for the three Caribbean plants due to protection 
from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In 
practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal 
lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
    We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. 
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 the DEA, which is available for review and comment 
(see ADDRESSES).

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable

[[Page 29152]]

economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed 
by comparing scenarios ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical 
habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). 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 would not 
be expected without 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 use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this designation, we developed an Incremental Effects 
Memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts 
that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The 
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening 
analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat 
for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola (IEc 
2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis 
on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic 
impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the 
geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely 
to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the 
screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical 
habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land 
and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management 
plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the 
habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. 
The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat 
that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, 
unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. The screening analysis 
also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may 
require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of 
the critical habitat designation and may incur incremental economic 
impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM is our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx 
concolor, and Varronia rupicola and is summarized in the narrative 
below.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We 
assess, to the extent practicable and if sufficient data are available, 
the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. 
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our IEM, first we identified the 
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following 
categories of activities: (1) Commercial or residential developments; 
(2) permits required when an activity results in the discharge of 
dredge or fill material into the waters of the United States; (3) 
removal of unexploded ordnance that involves vegetation removal; (4) 
restoration of coastal habitat; (5) control of invasive species; and 
(6) creation of new trails. We considered each industry or category 
individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have 
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect 
activities that do not have any Federal involvement, but only 
activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal 
agencies. In areas where Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and 
Varronia rupicola are present, Federal agencies already are required to 
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they 
fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize 
this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to distinguish between the effects that 
will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the 
critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference between the jeopardy 
and adverse modification standards) for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx 
concolor, and Varronia rupicola's critical habitat. Because the 
designation of critical habitat for three Caribbean plants was proposed 
concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is 
more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable 
to the species being listed and those which will result solely from the 
designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific 
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical and biological features identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
species and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or 
harassment to constitute jeopardy to Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx 
concolor, and Varronia rupicola would also likely adversely affect the 
essential physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM 
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between 
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the 
designation of critical habitat for this species.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for Agave eggersiana, 
Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola totals approximately 2,748 ha 
(6795.6 ac) in 15 units. Of the 15 units, 11 are considered occupied (4 
units for A. eggersiana, 2 units for G. concolor, and 5 units for V. 
rupicola). The proposed critical habitat designation includes lands 
under Federal (7.4 percent), U.S. Virgin Islands Territory (St. Croix, 
0.3 percent), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (30 percent), and private (62 
percent) land ownership. All of the Federal lands are part of the 
Vieques National Wildlife Refuge.
    In the occupied areas (93 percent), any actions that may affect 
designated critical habitat would also affect the species, and it is 
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended 
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those 
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence 
of A. eggersiana, G. concolor, and V. rupicola. Therefore, only 
administrative costs are expected in approximately 93 percent of the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

[[Page 29153]]

While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both 
the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most 
circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in 
nature and would not be significant.
    The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to 
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some 
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. 
Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve 
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial 
development that may occur on private lands. However, based on 
coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private 
entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor 
(administrative costs from $400 to $9,000 per consultation effort).
    The remaining 7 percent of the total proposed critical habitat 
designation is currently unoccupied habitat (two units for A. 
eggersiana and two units for V. rupicola) but is essential for the 
conservation of the species. In these unoccupied areas, any 
conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered 
incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. 
However, these unoccupied areas are already managed for conservation 
purposes, so few actions are expected to occur that will require 
section 7 consultation or associated project modifications for 
protection of critical habitat. In particular, consultations in these 
areas are anticipated to be associated with restoration of coastal 
habitat, minimization of trail creation and expansion, and invasive 
species control. Because the unoccupied areas are already set aside for 
conservation purposes, these anticipated activities are expected to be 
generally consistent with the needs of the species. Modifications to 
accommodate the three plants are expected to be relatively small and 
are unlikely to exceed $100 million in any single year.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation for A.eggersiana, G. concolor, and V. rupicola are expected 
to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor 
costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future 
section 7 consultations. This is due to two factors: (1) A large 
portion of proposed critical habitat area is occupied by the species 
(93 percent), and incremental economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation, other than administrative costs, are unlikely; and (2) in 
proposed areas that are not occupied by the three Caribbean plants (7 
percent), few actions are anticipated that will result in section 7 
consultation or associated project modifications. At approximately $400 
to $9,000 per consultation, in order to reach the threshold of $100 
million of incremental administrative impacts in a single year, annual 
critical habitat designation would have to result in more than 12,000 
consultations in a single year. Based on past consultation history 
alone, this is highly unlikely. Therefore, future probable incremental 
economic impacts are not likely to exceed $100 million in any single 
year.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our October 22, 2013, proposed rule (78FR62529), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable 
effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable 
economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of 
critical habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia 
rupicola, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. 
Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice 
Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on 
our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Agave eggersiana, 
Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola, we are amending our required 
determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.) and Takings (E.O. 12630).

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 of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 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 
certification 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 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.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the 
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory 
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried out by the Agency is not likely to adversely modify critical 
habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and

[[Page 29154]]

adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. 
Accordingly, our position is that only Federal action agencies will be 
directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small 
entities, and, to this end, there is no requirement under RFA to 
evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. 
Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this 
rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed 
critical habitat 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.

E.O. 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 designating critical 
habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola 
in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the 
designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although 
private parties that receive Federal funding or assistance, or 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. The DEA found that no 
significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation 
of critical habitat for Agave eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and 
Varronia rupicola. Because the Act's critical habitat protection 
requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts 
between critical habitat and private property rights should result from 
this designation. Based on information contained in the DEA and 
described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts 
to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a 
takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Agave 
eggersiana, Gonocalyx concolor, and Varronia rupicola does not pose 
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the 
designation.

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Caribbean Ecological Service Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

Authority

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

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-11731 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P