[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65953-65955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0100; FF09M21200-134-FXMB1232099BPP0]
RIN 1018-AX92
Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Regulations Concerning Certain
Depredation Orders
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to remove regulations that set forth certain
depredation orders for migratory birds. There have been no requests for
authorization of a depredation order under these regulations for many
years, and no reports of activities undertaken under these regulations
in the last 15 years. Because these regulations apparently are unused,
we propose to remove them. Control of depredating birds could still be
undertaken under depredation permits in accordance with the regulations
at 50 CFR 21.41.
DATES: Electronic comments on this proposal via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on
February 3, 2014. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no
later than February 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either one of the following two
methods:
Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket FWS-R9-MB-
2011-0100.
U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0100; 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: George T. Allen, at 703-358-1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations we propose to remove all deal with depredating
migratory birds. 50 CFR 21.42 governs control of depredating migratory
game birds in the United States; under this section of the regulations,
the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is authorized to
issue, by publication in the Federal Register, a depredation order to
permit the taking of migratory game birds under certain conditions if
the Director receives evidence clearly showing that the migratory game
birds have accumulated in such numbers in a particular area as to cause
or about to cause serious damage to agricultural, horticultural, and
fish cultural interests.
Under 50 CFR 21.45, landowners, sharecroppers, tenants, or their
employees or agents, actually engaged in the production of rice in
Louisiana, may, without a permit and in accordance with certain
conditions, take purple gallinules (Ionornis martinica) when found
committing or about to commit serious depredations to growing rice
crops on the premises owned or occupied by such persons.
Under 50 CFR 21.46, landowners, sharecroppers, tenants, or their
employees or agents actually engaged in the production of nut crops in
Washington and Oregon may, without a permit and in accordance with
certain conditions, take scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) and
Steller's jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) when found committing or about to
commit serious depredations to nut crops on the premises owned or
occupied by such persons.
All of these regulations were put in place in 1974, to help
commercial agricultural interests (for 50 CFR 21.42 and 21.45, see 39
FR 1157, January 4, 1974; for 50 CFR 21.46, see 39 FR 31325, August 28,
1974). 50 CFR 21.45 and 21.46 require reporting and recordkeeping on
activities taken in accordance with the regulations. We have received
no applications for declaration of a depredation order under Sec.
21.42 in the last 15 years, and there have been no reports of
activities conducted under Sec. 21.45 or Sec. 21.46 in at least 10
years. We therefore propose to remove these regulations. This action
would remove outdated, unused regulations from the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), thereby saving the Federal Government the annual
cost of republishing them in the CFR.
If this proposal is adopted, control of depredating birds could
still be undertaken under depredation permits, in accordance with 50
CFR 21.41. Further, issuing a depredation permit would be more likely
to promptly help resolve depredation problems than would a depredation
order to be published in the Federal Register, as the regulation at 50
CFR 21.42 currently requires.
[[Page 65954]]
Public Comments
We request comments on this proposed rule. You may submit your
comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by email or fax,
or written comments sent to an address other than the one listed 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. 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 entities (i.e.,
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. There are no costs associated
with this change to our regulations. The Federal Government would see a
very slight benefit, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would no
longer incur the very small annual cost of republishing these three
sections of the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
but even over many years, this monetary benefit will be so small as to
be negligible.
We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that
because this action would not have a significant economic impact 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)).
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.
Therefore, we certify that, if adopted, this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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. Actions
under the proposed regulation would not affect small government
activities.
b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater 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 impact summary statement 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 change in the depredation orders
that are the subject of this proposed rule.
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
There is no information collection requirement associated with this
proposed regulations change. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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 Part 516 of
the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM). The proposed
regulations change would simply remove unused regulations, and is
administrative in nature. The action is categorically excluded from
further NEPA consideration by 43 CFR 46.210(i).
Socioeconomic. The proposed regulations change would have no
discernible socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. The proposed regulations change would
not affect native migratory bird populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The proposed regulation change
would
[[Page 65955]]
not affect endangered or threatened species or habitats important to
them.
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 proposed rule would affect only certain depredation orders for
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 ``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)). The proposed
regulations change would not affect listed species.
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:
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
0
1. The authority for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
Sec. 21.42 [Removed and reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 21.42.
Sec. 21.45 [Removed and reserved]
0
3. Remove and reserve Sec. 21.45.
Sec. 21.46 [Removed and reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 21.46.
Dated: September 26, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-26070 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P