[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 15394-15398]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0109; 91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AW11

Migratory Bird Permits; Revision of Expiration Dates for Double-
Crested Cormorant Depredation Orders

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; availability of final environmental assessment.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, extend the expiration 
dates for two existing depredation orders for double-crested cormorants 
(Phalacrocorax auritus) for 5 years so that we can continue to 
authorize take of double-crested cormorants without a permit under the 
terms and conditions of the depredation orders. This action will 
continue to allow take of depredating double-crested cormorants to 
protect aquaculture, fish hatcheries, fish resources, other birds, 
vegetation, and habitats.

DATES: This rule will be effective on April 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Doyle, Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-1799.



    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the Federal agency 
delegated the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. This 
delegation is authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 
U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions with Great Britain 
(for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). The MBTA 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the provisions of, 
and in order to carry out the purposes of, the applicable conventions, 
to determine when, if at all, and by what means it is compatible with 
the terms of the conventions to allow the killing of migratory birds.
    The double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), a long-lived, 
colonial-nesting waterbird native to North America, is a migratory bird 
that is federally protected under the 1972 amendment to the Convention 
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, February 7, 
1936, United States-Mexico, as amended, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. No. 912 and 
is included on the list of species protected by the MBTA at 50 CFR 
10.13. Therefore, take of double-crested cormorants is strictly 
prohibited except as authorized by regulations implementing the MBTA.
    Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused 
biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts. The species' diet 
primarily consists of fish, and double-crested cormorant populations 
can decrease fish populations in open waters and in aquaculture 
facilities. In addition, their guano can kill trees, shrubs, and other 
vegetation. In November 2001, the Service completed a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant 
management. The DEIS examined six management alternatives for 
addressing conflicts with double-crested cormorants: (A) No Action, (B) 
Nonlethal Control, (C) Increased Local Damage Control, (D) Public 
Resource Depredation Order, (E) Regional Population Reduction, and (F) 
Regulated Hunting.
    On March 17, 2003, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (68 FR 12653) to implement the DEIS proposed action; 
Alternative D, Public Resource Depredation Order. A depredation order 
is a regulation that allows the take of specific species of migratory 
birds, at specific locations and for specific purposes, without a 
depredation permit. The proposed rule proposed revising the existing 
aquaculture depredation order to allow winter roost control; 
establishing a new depredation order to protect public resources from 
cormorant damages; and revising the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Director's Order 27 to allow lethal take of double-crested cormorants 
at public fish hatcheries.
    On August 11, 2003, we published a notice of availability for a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (68 FR 47603). In the FEIS, 
we assessed the impacts of the proposed depredation orders and 
determined that they would not significantly affect the status of the 
species. The selected action in the FEIS was Alternative D, Public 
Resource Depredation Order. This alternative was intended to enhance 
the ability of resource agencies to deal with immediate, localized 
damages caused by depredating double-crested cormorants by giving these 
agencies more management flexibility. The FEIS is available by 
contacting us at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 
Finally, on October 10, 2003, we published a final rule (68 FR 58022) 
that set forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred 
alternative: Alternative D (establishment of a public resource 
depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order).
    These depredation orders reside in part 21 of title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), which covers migratory bird permits. 
Subpart D of part 21 deals specifically with the control of depredating 
birds and currently includes eight depredation orders. The depredation 
orders at 50 CFR 21.47 (``Depredation order for double-crested 
cormorants at aquaculture facilities'') and 21.48 (``Depredation order 
for double-crested cormorants to protect public resources'') allow for 
take of the species under the provisions of our 2003 EIS. When we 
issued the final rule in 2003 we recognized the need for more 
information about double-crested cormorants and their impacts on 
resources across a variety of ecological settings, so we established an 
expiration date for the depredation orders of April 30, 2009, and 
included requirements for annual reporting to the Service of actions 
taken under the orders.
    The data we have gathered since the issuance of the final rule in 
2003, taken in concert with data from the 2003 EIS suggest that the 
orders have not had any significant negative effect on double-crested 
cormorant populations; data suggest that cormorant populations are 
stable or increasing with the orders in effect. Extending the orders 
will not, in the judgment of Service biologists, pose a significant, 
detrimental effect on the long-term viability of double-crested 
cormorant populations and will serve to mitigate the damage that these 
populations can cause to certain resources.

[[Page 15395]]

    Accordingly, we published a proposed rule December 8, 2008 (73 FR 
74445), to extend the depredation orders for double-crested cormorants 
at 50 CFR 21.47 and 21.48 for five more years. We believe it is prudent 
once again to establish an expiration date to ensure appropriate 
consideration of accumulated information. We proposed to extend these 
depredation orders so that we can continue to authorize take of double-
crested cormorants without a permit under the terms and conditions of 
the depredation orders and gather data on the effects of double-crested 
cormorant control actions. If we do not extend these depredation 
orders, any action to control depredating double-crested cormorants 
will require a permit. We prepared a draft environmental assessment 
(DEA) to analyze the environmental impacts associated with our proposed 
extensions and invited the public to comment on the DEA and our 
proposed extension.

Effective Date

    In accordance with paragraph (d)(3) and (d)(1) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), we find good cause to make 
this rule effective less than 30 days after publication. This 
substantive rule grants an exemption in that, if we do not extend these 
depredation orders, any action to control depredating double-crested 
cormorants will require a permit. As stated earlier in the preamble, we 
have no data to suggest that the depredation orders have had any 
significant negative effect on double-crested cormorant populations, 
and extending the orders will serve the public good by mitigating the 
damage that these populations can cause to certain resources.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    We received 18 comments on the proposed rule, including one from 
the Mississippi Flyway, four from State agencies, one from a Tribe, and 
two from interest groups. Major issues raised by commenters were the 
    Issue. The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) is insufficient.
    ``The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on which it [the 
proposed rule] is based is an inadequate document. Our three 
organizations have long been concerned that the cormorant depredation 
orders have not been sufficiently based on science. We are writing to 
emphasize the importance of completing a Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (SEIS) before reauthorizing these depredation 
    ``USFWS needs to examine the full scope of the conflicts it seeks 
to evaluate and address. Set against the background of water pollution, 
dredging, non-native invasive species, unsustainable commercial take, 
development, erosion, loss of wetlands, climate change, and other 
factors, the cormorant/recreational fishing/public resource conflict is 
extremely complex. The DEA fails to demonstrate that killing cormorants 
and destroying their eggs and nests will provide relief to resources 
impacted in systematic and myriad ways. USFWS also needs to update any 
population dynamics models that are to be used to justify the take of 
cormorants and to share those models with concerned citizens for their 
    ``It is especially disappointing that the DEA does not address the 
issues raised in the `Review of the Double-crested Cormorant Management 
Plan, 2003: Final Report of the American Ornithologists' Union 
Conservation Committee's Panel.' Their conclusions and recommendations 
are still relevant today: 1. Public perceptions and public attitudes 
related to the natural history of cormorants need to be addressed. 2. 
Serious attention must be given to finding innovative and economically 
appropriate methods for excluding piscivorous birds from fixed site 
facilities, such as aquaculture ponds and hatcheries, or reducing the 
attractiveness of such sites. 3. Further study is needed to understand 
better the causes and possible mitigation of declining yields in sport-
fishery. 4. Management planning would benefit from new data collection 
on fish take by cormorants in a variety of regions, including species 
and size/age classes, and the relationship between local take and fish 
densities, and dynamics at larger (fish population) scales. All these 
should be fully addressed in an SEIS.''
    ``I believe that a 5 year extension is unwarranted and should be 
shortened to the minimum time required to: (1) Analyze the extant data 
in depth, (2) publish that analysis in the open scientific literature 
where it can be reviewed by the broad community of wildlife and fishery 
population biologists, and (3) develop a real adaptive management plan 
that can be discussed by stakeholder groups, including those interested 
in the ethical issues arising from these proposed actions, not just 
those with economic or fish harvest objectives. I suggest a time frame 
of extending these orders on the order of 2 years to force the Federal 
management agencies (particularly the Fish and Wildlife Service * * *) 
to take these issues seriously and provide leadership on these 
    ``The DEA fails to present critical information about the impact of 
the past five years of cormorant management.''
    Response. Data collected in support of the 2003 EIS and since the 
completion of the EIS continue to suggest that the affected DCCO 
populations are stable or increasing. For example, a Great Lakes-wide 
census was conducted in 2005 and 2007 by Federal, State, tribal, and 
provincial agencies. The total take from 2004 through 2007 under the 
Public Resource Depredation Order published in October 2003 in Great 
Lake States was 30,353 birds, which amounts to an average annual take 
of 7,589 or 2.2% of the total Great Lakes population. Analysis of 
Double-crested Cormorant banding data for birds banded in the Great 
Lakes from 1979-2006 indicates that the depredation orders have likely 
had a negative effect on annual survival of ``hatch-year'' age-class 
cormorants in the Great Lakes. The effect of the orders on survival 
after that year was unclear. We also used annual counts of nests from 
the Lake Erie and Ontario from 1979-2007; annual harvests of cormorants 
from each lake in the Great Lakes from 2003-2007; the number of eggs 
oiled in each lake from 2005 to 2007; and the number of nesting 
individuals in each lake in 2005 and 2007 to model population dynamics. 
Our model estimates that, if harvest or cormorants and egg oiling 
remain at the current rates, the population would decline by 
approximately 20% by 2014 which is approximately three times the size 
of the population in the early 1990s.
    We will obtain additional data on the population trend after the 
censuses to be conducted this year and in the future. The depredation 
orders require agencies taking action under them to provide to us 
report detailing activities conducted under the orders, including, by 
date and location, a summary of the number of double-crested cormorants 
killed and/or number of nests in which eggs were oiled. In addition, we 
have conducted Service-sponsored technical workshops have been 
conducted annually since 2005. Data on the impacts of control on other 
species of birds that nest with double-crested cormorants have been 
collected by Federal, State, and Canadian wildlife officials.
    We recognize that it probably will be necessary to update the EIS 
at some time in the future. The data available to us suggest that 
double-crested cormorant populations have not been harmed by the orders 
in effect. We have complied with our goals stated in the 2003 EIS by 
making every effort to capture data from improved double-crested 
cormorant population

[[Page 15396]]

monitoring that will allow us to assess population changes subsequent 
to implementation of the depredation orders. The data that are 
available are summarized in the Environmental Assessment.
    Issue. ``The DEA fails to evaluate any non-lethal alternatives. As 
they may prove to be more effective including cost effective, this is a 
serious omission.''
    Response. An Environmental Assessment must consider a no-action 
alternative, which we did. The other alternatives considered were 
germane to the issue. We did not intend to expand double-crested 
cormorant management alternatives or to supplement the EIS at this 
    Issue. ``The very concept of granting states, tribes, and 
aquaculturists license to take cormorants without permit is a novel 
policy issue in that it sets a precedent for similar actions regarding 
other species of migratory fish-eating birds like pelicans, herons, and 
egrets. Many of those species were severely threatened by similarly 
large scale killing programs a century ago. Protection of those species 
in particular was a major impetus for developing the Migratory Bird 
Treaty under which FWS now operates. Is it now FWS policy that 
conserving migratory bird populations means nothing more than that 
those populations do not reach dangerously low, perhaps irreversibly 
low, levels so that they require action under the Endangered Species 
    Response. These depredation orders do not present a novel policy 
issue. We have had depredation orders for other species in place, some 
for many years. Depredation orders are a tool to manage migratory bird 
populations. Provided that we can ensure that the orders do not 
substantially harm the double-crested cormorant population, they are in 
keeping with our mandate to protect bird populations. The data do not 
indicate that the orders will substantially harm cormorant populations, 
nor cause them to reach dangerously low population levels. To the 
contrary, relevant data indicates that the cormorant population is 
stable or increasing increased since we authorized the depredation 
orders in 2003.
    Issue. ``We hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not use 
the 5 years as a waiting period, but instead starts the SEIS during 
this time [the proposed 5 year extension] so that the evaluation 
process is nearly completed by 2014.''
    Response. We believe our experience under the current depredation 
orders and the data we have gathered since they went into effect 
support a five year extension. We expect to undertake a supplemental 
EIS if new data and population reports warrant it, but at this time, we 
cannot set a particular date to start that effort.
    Issue. Two commenters suggested that the depredation order should 
not have an expiration date.
    ``Regulations such as the double-crested cormorant depredation 
orders should not have expiration dates. Revising the regulations and 
doing additional NEPA analyses when the regulations expire add 
additional expenses for the agency, and could interfere with other 
needed work. With the limited funding under which the Fish and Wildlife 
Service operates, the agency should not set arbitrary expiration dates 
for its regulations.''
    Response. The five year limitation allows us to undertake a 
reexamination of the rule after a reasonable period of time. We will 
continue to review available information on cormorant populations, fish 
populations, habitat changes, possible cormorant exclusion measures, 
and other relevant factors. We believe it is prudent to establish an 
expiration date to ensure appropriate consideration of accumulated 
information at that time.
    Issue. Government-to-government consultation.
    ``* * * the USFWS states that `we have evaluated potential effects 
on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there 
are no potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the ability 
of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory 
bird activities on Tribal lands.' We believe that this statement is not 
completely accurate because the situation with cormorants nesting on 
Tribal lands on Leech Lake has raised many additional issues for us and 
our relationships with the general public, especially the resort 
community. It has also caused us to have to divert funding and other 
resources in an effort to address the issue to the satisfaction of the 
public. We therefore think that this section needs revised, because our 
tribe, and potentially others, are currently and are likely in the 
future to experience the effects of this federal action.'' (Leech Lake 
Band of Ojibwe)
    Response. We recognize that the government needs to consult with 
Tribes on natural resource management issues that may affect them. 
However, we proposed only to extend a depredation order that allows 
control of problematic double-crested cormorant populations. Doing so 
would allow the Tribe to continue control actions; in this case the 
proposed action was simply to extend the depredation orders; no 
substantive regulations change was contemplated.
    The Public Resources Depredation Order ensures each Tribe's ability 
to make decisions about control actions for double-crested cormorants 
on Tribal land. We understand the additional burdens that these 
decisions place on Tribes, and therefore our Regional Offices will 
continue to consult with Tribes during implementation of this public 
resources depredation order consistent with our Government-to-
Government relationship.
    Comment. ``The original PRDO [Public Resource Depredation Order, 50 
CFR 21.48], implemented in 2003, has provided NYSDEC with very 
acceptable latitude in the management of cormorants relative to 
identified public resource concerns. We applaud the Service for taking 
the necessary steps to enact this rule. We also strongly support the 
continuation of the authorities provided in the PRDO. As an aside, we 
have found the Service's oversight of the PRDO to be simple, clearly 
defined, and without undue burden. We believe the PRDO has allowed 
NYSDEC to address our resource needs while ensuring viable cormorant 
populations on the landscape.'' (New York State Department 
Environmental Conservation)
    Comment. ``The Illinois Department of Natural Resources strongly 
supports Alternative B: Five-year Extension. This alternative * * * is 
in our opinion, the best recourse for the near future in Illinois.''
    ``A five-year extension of the depredation orders would allow us to 
pursue our goals of providing for a healthy sport fish population in 
the State of Illinois, and to assure that there are no detrimental 
effects on the viability of double-crested cormorant populations.''
    Comment. ``The Department supports Alternative B * * *. Continued 
mechanisms to facilitate take are needed to ensure that fish, wildlife, 
and vegetation resources can be effectively managed and protected. A 
limited term extension to the Public Resource Depredation Order 
provides the states with the ability to manage cormorants while also 
working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a long term, 
regional management framework.'' (State agency)

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is

[[Page 15397]]

not significant under E.O. (E.O.) 12866. OMB bases its determination 
upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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 (Pub. L. 104-121)), 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 
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's 
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and have determined that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The rule would allow small entities to continue actions they have been 
able to take under the regulations--actions specifically designed to 
improve the economic viability of those entities--and, therefore, will 
not significantly affect them economically. Because of the structure of 
wildlife damage management, the economic impacts of our action will 
fall primarily on State governments and the Wildlife Services Division 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service. These do not qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions'' under the Act's definition. Effects on other small 
entities, such as aquaculture producers, will be positive because such 
facilities may continue to control depredating cormorants without 
having to obtain a permit from the Service, but are not predicted to be 
significant. We certify that because this rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, 
a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
    a. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more.
    b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local 
government agencies; or geographic regions.
    c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we have determined the following:
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions 
under the regulation will not affect small government activities in any 
significant way.
    b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year. It will not be a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.


    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant 
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. 
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property. 
In fact, this action will help alleviate private and public property 
damage and allow the exercise of otherwise unavailable privileges.


    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given statutory responsibility over these 
species by the MBTA. While legally this responsibility rests solely 
with the Federal Government, in the best interest of the migratory bird 
resource, we work cooperatively with States and other relevant agencies 
to develop and implement the various migratory bird management plans 
and strategies. This action does not have a substantial direct effect 
on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or 
State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. It 
will allow, but will not require, States to develop and implement their 
own double-crested cormorant management programs. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 13132, this action does not have 
significant federalism effects and does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and 
meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    We examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not collect or sponsor, 
and you are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget 
control number. The Office of Management and Budget approved the 
information collection requirements for this part, and assigned OMB 
Control Number 1018-0121, which expires December 31, 2009. There are no 
new information collection requirements associated with this 
regulations change.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have completed a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) on this 
proposed regulations change. The FEA is a part of the administrative 
record for this rule. In accordance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and Part 516 of the U.S. 
Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM), extension of the expiration 
dates of the depredation orders will not have a significant effect on 
the quality of the human environment, nor would it involve unresolved 
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources; 
therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 
not required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and 
have determined that there are no potential significant effects. This 
rule will not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves 
or their funds or to

[[Page 15398]]

regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change will not be 
a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action 
will not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ``The Secretary [of the 
Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize 
such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter'' (16 
U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must ``insure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of [critical] habitat'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We consulted on 
threatened and endangered species when we completed the 2003 EIS, and 
precautions to protect wood storks (Mycteria americana), bald eagles 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), and 
least terns (Sternula antillarum) are in place in the depredation 
orders. We have concluded that the regulation change will not affect 
listed species.

Literature Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final Environmental Impact 
Statement: Double-crested Cormorant Management. Available at http://

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby amend part 21 of 
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as follows:


1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 
703); Public Law 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public 
Law 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

Sec.  21.47  [Amended]

2. Amend Sec.  21.47(f) by removing the phrase ``April 30, 2009'' and 
adding in its place ``June 30, 2014.''

Sec.  21.48  [Amended]

3. Amend Sec.  21.48(f) by removing the phrase ``April 30, 2009'' and 
adding in its place ``June 30, 2014.''

    Dated: March 30, 2009.
Will Shafroth,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7650 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]