[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30792-30799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12501]



[[Page 30792]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ60


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Physaria globosa (Short's Bladderpod), Helianthus 
verticillatus (Whorled Sunflower), and Leavenworthia crassa (Fleshy-
Fruit Gladecress)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the August 2, 2013, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Physaria globosa (Short's 
bladderpod), Helianthus verticillatus (whorled sunflower), and 
Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress) 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 for these species as well as an amended required 
determinations section of the proposal. We also propose to increase the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for Leavenworthia crassa by 
approximately 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) by adding one unit in Lawrence 
County, Alabama. We are reopening the comment period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
revised 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 30, 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 the associated documents of the draft economic analysis (DEA) on 
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0086 or by mail from the Tennessee 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 DEA by searching for FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086, 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-2013-0086; 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: Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Office, 
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone 931-528-6481, or by 
facsimile (931-528-7075). 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress 
that was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 
47060), 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 distribution of Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and 
fleshy-fruit gladecress;
    (b) The amount and distribution of habitat for Short's bladderpod, 
whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress; and
    (c) 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, 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) The new area that we are proposing for critical habitat 
designation for the fleshy-fruit gladecress in this revised proposed 
rule.
    (5) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress and proposed critical habitat.
    (6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, the benefits of including or excluding 
areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the 
likely economic impacts.
    (8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the 
draft economic analysis, 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.
    (9) 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.
    (10) 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 47060) during the initial comment period from August 2 to October 1,

[[Page 30793]]

2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the 
public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of 
our final determination. Our final determination concerning proposed 
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 the ADDRESSES section. We 
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    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-2013-0086, or by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee 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-2013-0086, or by 
mail from the Tennessee 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled 
sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress in this document. For more 
information on these species and their habitats or previous Federal 
actions concerning these species, refer to the proposed listing and 
critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on August 2, 
2013 (78 FR 47109), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0087) or from the 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On August 2, 2013, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress (78 FR 47060). We proposed to designate approximately:

     373 hectares (ha) (925.5 acres (ac)) of critical habitat 
in 20 units for Short's bladderpod in Posey County, Indiana; Clark, 
Franklin, and Woodford Counties, Kentucky; and Cheatham, Davidson, 
Dickson, Jackson, Montgomery, Smith, and Trousdale Counties, Tennessee.
     624 ha (1,542 ac) of critical habitat for whorled 
sunflower in 4 units in Cherokee County, Alabama; Floyd County, 
Georgia; and Madison and McNairy Counties, Tennessee.
     8.4 ha (20.5 ac) of critical habitat for fleshy-fruit 
gladecress in 6 units in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama.

That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 1, 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.

Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat

    In this document, we are proposing to increase the designation of 
critical habitat for the fleshy-fruit gladecress by approximately 0.04 
ha (0.1 ac), for a total of approximately 8.4 ha (20.6 ac) in 7 
critical habitat units in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama.
    We are proposing to modify our proposed critical habitat 
designation by adding Unit 7 for the fleshy-fruit gladecress based on 
information received from the Tennessee Valley Authority about a 
previously unknown population and based on our field visits made on 
March 27, 2014. The change is described in Table 1 and the unit 
description below. Maps illustrating the changes from previously 
proposed unit boundaries are included in the rule portion of this 
document and are also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at docket number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0086.

           Table 1--Addition to Leavenworthia crassa Proposed Critical Habitat Designation in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed critical habitat unit              County               Land ownership       Size of proposed unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 7. Hillsboro Glade..............  Lawrence...............  Private................  0.04 ha (0.1 ac).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit 7. Hillsboro Glade

    Unit 7 consists of 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) of privately owned land in 
Lawrence County, Alabama. This unit is currently occupied and is 
located within a powerline right-of-way approximately 400 feet south of 
the intersection of County Roads 217 and 222, near Hillsboro. Habitat 
in this unit consists of a relatively small limestone glade outcrop 
within a powerline right-of-way that is bordered by a forested area. 
Well-illuminated, open areas (Primary Constituent Element (PCE) 2), 
with shallow soils and exposed limestone bedrock that are dominated by 
characteristic glade vegetation (PCE 1), are present within the unit. 
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
threats of the invasion of exotic species into open glades and possible 
changes in land use, including agriculture or development.

[[Page 30794]]

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress, the benefits of critical habitat include public 
awareness of the presence of these species and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for these species 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. To consider 
information related to economic impact, we have prepared a draft 
economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, 
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 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress 
(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. Ultimately, the 
screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the 
specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic 
impacts as a result of the designation. 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 were used to develop our draft economic analysis 
of the proposed critical habitat designation for Short's bladderpod, 
whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, and this information 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 dated 
December 2, 2013, and modified on April 17, 2014

[[Page 30795]]

to include the additional critical habitat unit for the fleshy-fruit 
gladecress, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the 
following categories of activities: (1) Utility projects, including 
work on electricity transmission lines, gas pipelines, sewer pipelines, 
water pipelines, and telecommunications equipment; (2) recreation; (3) 
conservation projects; (4) transportation activities including bridge 
construction; (5) agriculture; and (6) residential and commercial 
development. 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 
Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress 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., difference between the jeopardy and 
adverse modification standards) for the three plant species. Because 
the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, whorled 
sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress was proposed concurrently with 
their 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or 
fleshy-fruit gladecress 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 these species.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for Short's bladderpod 
totals approximately 373 ha (925.5 ac) in 20 units, all of which are 
currently occupied by the species, and includes lands under Federal (30 
percent), State or local government (6 percent), and private (64 
percent) land ownership. All of the Federal lands are administered by 
the Army Corps of Engineers, which also holds leases on approximately 
four percent of the privately owned lands included in this proposed 
critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat designation 
for whorled sunflower totals approximately 624.2 ha (1,542.3 ac) in 
four units, all of which are currently occupied by the species and are 
located entirely within privately owned lands. The proposed critical 
habitat designation for fleshy-fruit gladecress totals 8.4 ha (20.6 ac) 
in seven units, all of which are currently occupied by the species, and 
includes Federal (6 percent) and privately owned (94 percent) lands.
    In these areas any actions that may affect the species or their 
habitat would also affect designated critical habitat 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress. 
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected to result from the 
proposed critical habitat designation. 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 of less than $5,000 per consultation effort).
    The probable incremental economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations for Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress 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 the fact that all of the proposed critical habitat units are 
considered to be occupied by the species, and incremental economic 
impacts of critical habitat designation, other than administrative 
costs, are unlikely. The administrative costs are expected to range 
from $410 to $5,000 per consultation. At maximum, the incremental cost 
per year is not expected to exceed $16,000.00 annually. Therefore, 
future probable incremental economic impacts are not likely to exceed 
$100 million in any single year.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our August 2, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 47060), 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress, 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 Short's bladderpod, 
whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit gladecress, we are amending our 
required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
E.O. 12630 (Takings).

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.),

[[Page 30796]]

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 required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of 
rulemaking only 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 adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat 
designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position 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 the 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-fruit 
gladecress 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 economic 
analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to 
result from the designation of critical habitat for Short's bladderpod, 
whorled sunflower, or fleshy-fruit gladecress. 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 economic analysis 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 Short's bladderpod, whorled sunflower, and fleshy-
fruit gladecress 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 
Tennessee Ecological Services 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.).

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 on August 2, 2013, at 78 FR 47060, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by revising paragraph (5) and adding paragraph 
(12) to the entry proposed at 78 FR 47060 for ``Family Brassicaceae: 
Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    Family Brassicaceae: Leavenworthia crassa (fleshy-fruit gladecress)
* * * * *
    (5) Index map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 30797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY14.000

* * * * *
    (12) Unit 7: Hillsboro Glade, Lawrence County, Alabama. Map of Unit 
7 follows:

[[Page 30798]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY14.001


[[Page 30799]]


* * * * *

    Dated: May 21, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-12501 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C