[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27927-27930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11255]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2012-0037; FF09M21200-234-FXMB1232099BPP0]
RIN 1018-AY65
Migratory Bird Permits; Depredation Order for Migratory Birds in
California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise the regulations that allow control of
depredating birds in some counties in California. We propose to specify
the counties in which this order is effective, to better identify which
species may be taken under the order, to add a requirement that
landowners attempt nonlethal control, to add a requirement for use of
nontoxic ammunition, and to revise the reporting required. These
changes would update and clarify the current regulations and enhance
our ability to carry out our responsibility to conserve migratory
birds.
DATES: Electronic comments on this proposal via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11.59 p.m. Eastern time on
August 12, 2013. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no later
than August 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following two
methods:
Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket FWS-R9-MB-
2012-0037.
U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2012-0037; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information that you provide. See the Public Comments section
below for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen at 703-358-1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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). We
implement the provisions of the MBTA through regulations in parts 10,
13, 20, 21, and 22 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Regulations pertaining to migratory bird permits are at 50 CFR
part 21; subpart D of part 21 contains regulations for the control of
depredating birds.
A depredation order allows the take of specific species of
migratory birds for specific purposes without need for a depredation
permit. The depredation order at 50 CFR 21.44 allows county
commissioners of agriculture to authorize take of designated species of
[[Page 27928]]
depredating birds in California ``as may be necessary to safeguard any
agricultural or horticultural crop in the county.''
Current Depredation Order
Take of depredating birds has been reported under the depredation
order at 50 CFR 21.44 in Fresno, Merced, Napa, and Sonoma counties in
California in recent years, and some counties have reported take of
species not authorized under the regulation. Because these are the only
counties making use of the depredation order, we propose to limit
future use of the order to these four counties.
The depredation order allows take of horned larks (Eremophila
alpestris), golden-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia atricapilla), white-
crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), house finches (Carpodacus
mexicanus) and ``other crowned sparrows'' where they cause agricultural
damage. We believe the current wording of the regulation is unclear as
``other crowned sparrows'' is imprecise. The only other U.S. sparrow
with ``crowned'' in the name is the rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila
ruficeps), which can be found in coastal California. However, the term
``crowned'' might be applied to many other sparrow species that have
feather patterns on their heads that people might call ``crowns.''
Proposed Changes
We propose to revise Sec. 21.44 to:
(1) Specify in which counties this regulation is applicable;
(2) precisely identify the species that may be taken as described
below;
(3) specify the times of year that they may be taken to maximize
protection of affected crops and effectiveness of control operations;
(4) require that landowners attempt nonlethal control each year;
(5) require the use of nontoxic ammunition; and
(6) update the requirement for reporting take under this
depredation order.
These changes would bring the requirements of this depredation order in
line with current regulations for other depredation orders under the
MBTA and allow us to better carry out our statutory responsibility to
protect and conserve migratory birds.
This proposed rule would remove horned larks from the depredation
order. Horned larks feed on ``a diversity of food types, primarily
seeds and insects, but also some fruits'' (Beason 1995). Damage to some
agricultural crops has been documented, including to crops in
California (Beason 1995, Clark and Hygnstrom 1994). However, trapping
and shooting of horned larks to limit depredation is considered
ineffective (Clark and Hygnstrom 1994).
In addition, the streaked horned lark subspecies, E. a. strigata,
is endangered in Canada (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada 2003), a Listing Priority 3 candidate species in the United
States (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011), and a subspecies of
conservation concern in Washington and Oregon (USFWS 2008). Because the
wintering locations of this subspecies may include parts of California,
take of this subspecies would not be allowed under this depredation
order.
Finally, we propose to remove golden-crowned sparrows, because none
have been reported taken under the depredation order.
Public Comments
We request comments on this proposed rule. You may submit your
comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax, or
written comments sent to an address other than the one listed 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. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request that we withhold this
information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
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 businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Other than a minimal change in
the resources needed to address the proposed reporting requirements,
there are no costs associated with this regulations change.
We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because only four counties
have made use of this depredation order, we believe no economic impacts
to any small entities will result from the proposed revisions. Any
agricultural producers who qualify as small entities in those counties
could still seek relief from depredating birds under these proposed
revisions. Under the current regulations, the county commissioners of
agriculture have needed to comply with a reporting requirement, and the
proposed changes to this requirement should add minimal burden. Because
we have determined that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small
[[Page 27929]]
entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)).
It would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more.
b. This rule would 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 would not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
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 would not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. The
proposed revisions would not have significant effects. The proposed
regulation would minimally affect small government activities by
changing the reporting requirement under the depredation order.
b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
more in any year. It would not be a ``significant regulatory action.''
Takings
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private
property. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, a takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. It
would not interfere with the States' abilities to manage themselves or
their funds. No significant economic impacts are expected to result
from the proposed changes in the depredation order.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 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 the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
We may not conduct 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 (OMB) control number. Because this rule
affects only four county government agencies in California, the annual
report does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f), and U.S.
Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We have
completed an Environmental Action Statement stating that this action
would have neither a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment, nor unresolved conflicts concerning uses of available
resources.
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), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have determined that there are no potential effects on Federally
recognized Indian Tribes from the proposed regulations change. The
proposed regulations change would not interfere with Tribes' abilities
to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird
activities on Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
This rule only affects depredation control of migratory birds, and
would not affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action
would 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 Ainsure
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)). The proposed
regulations change would not affect listed species.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Does the description of the rule
in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble help you
to understand the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to the Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington,
DC 20240-0001. You also may email comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Literature Cited
Beason, Robert C. 1995. Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris). Number
195 in The Birds of North America Online. Edited by A. Poole.
Ithaca, New York, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of North America
Online, http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/195doi:10.2173/bna.195.
Clark, J. P. and S. E. Hygnstrom. 1994. Horned Larks. Number 64 in
The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. http://digigalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/64.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2003.
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Horned Lark Strigata
subspecies, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Species of Conservation
Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons described in the preamble, we propose to amend
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
[[Page 27930]]
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
0
2. Revise Sec. 21.44 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.44 Depredation order for house finches and white-crowned
sparrows in California.
House finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) and white-crowned sparrows
(Zonotrichia leucophrys) may be taken in Fresno, Merced, Napa, and
Sonoma Counties in California if they are depredating on agricultural
or horticultural crops. Take of birds under this order must be done
under the supervision of the county agriculture commissioner. You do
not need a Federal permit for this depredation control as long as you
meet the conditions below, but a depredation permit (Sec. 21.41 in
this subpart) is required for take of other migratory bird species, or
for take of white-crowned sparrows from 1 April through 30 September.
(a) When is take allowed?
(1) House finches may be controlled at any time.
(2) White-crowned sparrows may be controlled from 1 October through
31 March.
(b) Use of nonlethal control. Each year, before lethal control may
be undertaken, the landowner must attempt to use nonlethal control of
migratory bird depredation as recommended by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife
Services. The county agriculture commissioner must confirm that
nonlethal measures have been undertaken to control or eliminate the
problem prior to the landowner using lethal control.
(c) Ammunition. Except when using an air rifle or an air pistol, if
firearms are used to kill migratory birds under the provisions of this
regulation, the shooter must use nontoxic shot or nontoxic bullets to
do so. See Sec. 20.21(j) of this chapter for a listing of approved
nontoxic shot types.
(d) Disposition of carcasses. Specimens useful for scientific
purposes may be transferred to any entity authorized to possess them.
If not transferred, all carcasses of birds killed under this order must
be buried or otherwise destroyed. None of the above migratory birds
killed, or the parts thereof, or the plumage of such birds, shall be
sold or removed from the area where killed.
(e) Annual report. Any county official acting under this
depredation order must provide an annual report to the Regional
Migratory Bird Permit Office. The use of FWS Form 3-202-2144 (see
Service Web site) is preferred, but not required. The address for the
Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office is in Sec. 2.2 of subchapter A
of this chapter, and is on the form. The report is due by January 31st
of the following year and must include the following information:
(1) The name, address, phone number, and email address of the
reporting County Commissioner;
(2) The species and number of birds taken each month;
(3) The disposition of the carcasses; and
(4) The crop or crops that the birds were taken to protect.
Dated: April 30, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-11255 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P