Protection of Bald Eagles; Definition, 8265-8268 [06-1440]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 22
RIN 1018–AT94
Protection of Bald Eagles; Definition
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
HSROBINSON on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In anticipation of possible
removal (delisting) of the bald eagle in
the 48 contiguous States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (the Service) is proposing a
definition of ‘‘disturb’’ under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA) to guide post-delisting bald
eagle management. Because BGEPA’s
prohibition against disturbance applies
to both bald and golden eagles, the
definition will apply to golden eagles
(Aquila chrysaetos) as well as bald
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
If the bald eagle is delisted, the
BGEPA will become the primary law
protecting bald eagles. BGEPA prohibits
take of bald and golden eagles and
provides a statutory definition of ‘‘take’’
that includes ‘‘disturb.’’ Although
disturbing eagles has been prohibited by
BGEPA since the statute’s enactment,
the meaning of ‘‘disturb’’ has never been
explicitly defined by the Service or by
the courts. To define ‘‘disturb,’’ we rely
on the common meaning of the term as
applied to the conservation intent of
BGEPA and the working definitions of
‘‘disturb’’ currently used by Federal and
State agencies to manage bald eagles.
This proposed definition of disturb will
apply to Alaska, where the bald eagle
has never been listed under the ESA, as
well as the 48 contiguous States. (Eagles
do not occur in Hawaii.)
In addition to this proposed
rulemaking, the Service is soliciting
public comment on two related
proposals published separately in this
part of today’s Federal Register. First,
the Service is re-opening the public
comment period on the proposed rule to
remove the bald eagle from the list of
threatened species under the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); we originally
proposed delisting the bald eagle on
July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36453). Second, we
are soliciting comment on draft National
Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.
DATES: We will accept written
comments on this proposed rule until
May 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and other information, identified by RIN
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:36 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
1018–AT94, by any of the following
methods:
• Mail: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, MBSP–4107, Arlington,
Virginia 22203. Attn: RIN 1018–AT94.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same
address as above.
• E-mail:
BaldEagle_ProposedRule@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 1018–AT94’’ in the
subject line of the message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)
for this rulemaking. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments,
file format and other information about
electronic filing, and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the ‘‘Public Comments Invited’’
heading at the end of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. In the event that our
Internet connection is not functional,
please submit your comments by the
alternate methods mentioned above.
The complete file for this proposed
rule is available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Division of Migratory Bird
Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive,
Room 4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203–
1610. Please call 703–358–1714 to make
an appointment to view the files.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eliza Savage, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, (see ADDRESSES section);
or via e-mail at: Eliza_Savage@fws.gov;
telephone: (703) 358–2329; or facsimile:
(703) 358–2217.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
For a discussion of the history of the
bald eagle’s status in the United States,
including legislative and regulatory
actions taken to protect and recover bald
eagle populations, see our re-opening of
the comment period on the proposed
rule to delist the bald eagle, published
separately in this part of today’s Federal
Register.
Bald Eagle National Management
Guidelines
Since the bald eagle was listed under
the ESA, the ESA has been the primary
law protecting bald eagles in the 48
contiguous States. If the bald eagle is
delisted under the ESA, the BGEPA (16
U.S.C. 668–668d) will become the
primary law protecting bald eagles in
the lower 48, as it has continued to be
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8265
in Alaska where the bald eagle was
never listed under the ESA. The BGEPA
protects both bald and golden eagles. It
prohibits take of both species and
provides a statutory definition of ‘‘take’’
that includes ‘‘disturb.’’ To provide
guidance to land managers, landowners,
and others who plan activities in the
vicinity of bald eagles, the Service has
developed draft National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines. (See our notice
of availability of the draft guidelines
published separately in this part of
today’s Federal Register.) In the event
the bald eagle is delisted, the guidelines
will provide information to the public
regarding how to avoid disturbing bald
eagles. Secondly, the guidelines include
additional recommended practices that
can benefit bald eagles. The draft
guidelines are based on the definition of
‘‘disturb’’ that we are proposing in this
rulemaking.
Although the Guidelines are not law
and strict adherence to them is not
mandatory, they will benefit both eagles
and people by: (1) Publicizing the
provisions of the BGEPA and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703–712) that continue to protect bald
eagles, in order to reduce the possibility
that people will violate those laws, (2)
advising landowners, land managers
and the general public of the potential
for various human activities to disturb
bald eagles, and (3) encouraging land
management practices that benefit bald
eagles and their habitat. We are
soliciting public input on the
guidelines. To obtain a copy, see the
Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines for public
comment published separately in this
part of today’s Federal Register.
Description of the Proposed Rulemaking
Through an amendment to 50 CFR
22.3, we propose to define the term
‘‘disturb’’ under the BGEPA. Disturbing
bald and golden eagles is prohibited
because BGEPA prohibits ‘‘take’’ of
eagles, and defines ‘‘take’’ to include
‘‘disturb.’’ Until now, the meaning of
‘‘disturb’’ has never been explicitly
defined by the Service or by the courts.
To define ‘‘disturb,’’ we rely on the
common meaning of the term as applied
to the conservation intent of BGEPA and
the working definitions of ‘‘disturb’’
currently used by Federal and State
agencies to manage bald and golden
eagles.
‘‘Disturb’’ is defined by the American
Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (4th ed., 2000) as:
‘‘1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity
or settled state of: ‘‘Subterranean fires and
deep unrest disturb the whole area’’ (Rachel
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
8266
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Carson). 2. To trouble emotionally or
mentally; upset. 3a. To interfere with;
interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep. b.
To intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls
disturbed her work. 4. To put out of order;
disarrange.
The Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary (2004) defines disturb as:
HSROBINSON on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
‘‘1a: to interfere with : INTERRUPT. b: to
alter the position or arrangement of. c: to
upset the natural and especially the
ecological balance or relations of . 2a: to destroy the
tranquillity or composure of. b: to throw into
disorder. c: ALARM. d: to put to
inconvenience.’’
Thus, disturb can be applied to
individuals as well as to natural forces
and universal concepts (e.g., ‘‘disturbing
the peace’’). As applied to individuals,
the concept of disturb implies and
requires there be a psychological or
physiological component—essentially
an agitating effect—on the individual
being disturbed.
Biological studies of eagle behavior
indicate that eagles are particularly
vulnerable to interference during
territory establishment, courtship, egglaying, incubation, and parenting of
nestlings. A wide variety of activities,
including various types of development,
resource extraction, and recreational
activities near sensitive areas such as
nesting, feeding, and roosting sites can
interrupt or interfere with the
behavioral patterns of eagles. Further
disruption may also result from human
activity that occurs after the initial
habitat alterations and construction
activities (e.g., residential occupancy or
the use of commercial buildings, roads,
piers, and boat launching ramps).
When the BGEPA was enacted,
Congress intended it to be the primary
vehicle by which eagles would be
protected from extinction, and as such
Congress provided a broad prohibition
in its definition of ‘‘take,’’ by defining
it to include: pursue, shoot, shoot at,
wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,
molest or disturb. (Congress added the
term ‘‘poison’’ to the definition in 1972
(P.L. 92–535 [86 Stat. 1064)], October
23, 1972).) In keeping with the
conservation intent of the BGEPA, we
have determined that the following
biological premises are necessary to
secure long-term protections for the bald
and golden eagle populations:
prevention of nest abandonment and
prevention of death or injury resulting
from interference with normal breeding,
feeding, and sheltering habits.
Accordingly, we propose to define
‘‘disturb’’ under the BGEPA as follows:
‘‘To agitate or bother a bald or golden
eagle to the degree that interferes with
or interrupts normal breeding, feeding,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:36 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
or sheltering habits, causing injury,
death, or nest abandonment.’’ In
addition to immediate impacts, this
definition encompasses impacts that
result from human-induced alterations
initiated around a previously used nest
site during a time when eagles are not
present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such
alterations agitate or bother an eagle to
a degree that interferes with or
interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering habits and causes injury,
death, or nest abandonment. This
definition is consistent with how
‘‘disturb’’ has been interpreted in the
past by the Service and other Federal
and State wildlife and land management
agencies.
The definition is intended to cover
situations where the interference or
interruption of an eagle’s breeding,
feeding, or sheltering habits causes
injury or death not just to themselves,
but more typically to other eagles: the
juveniles or eggs. For example: if adult
eagles are repeatedly flushed from a
nest, their young may overheat and die,
or their eggs may cool too much and fail
to hatch.
Biological literature indicates that
factors such as the proximity, frequency,
magnitude, and duration of activities,
along with the presence or absence of
vegetative buffers and topographic
changes in terrain, determine how an
activity impacts eagles. Vegetation
surrounding a nest tree or concentration
area may serve to buffer, conceal, or
muffle human activities from the eagle’s
visual or auditory awareness. Therefore,
site-specific factors can affect the
likelihood and degree of impacts to the
eagles. Individual eagles and pairs of
eagles demonstrate remarkably different
thresholds for disturbance. On-site
evaluations of the terrain, existing
vegetation, existing human activities
and/or development, sight lines from
the nest, and observed behaviors of the
eagles in that particular locality will
help to determine whether disturbance
is likely to occur on a case-by-case basis.
The National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines will provide assistance to
people whose activities may affect bald
eagles based on these varying factors
(see our notice of availability of the
guidelines published separately in this
part of today’s Federal Register).
Required Determinations
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
(E.O. 13211). On May 18, 2001, the
President issued an Executive Order
addressing regulations that affect energy
supply, distribution, and use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This rule is
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, and use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
12866). This rule is a significant
regulatory action subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). OMB makes the final
determination of significance under
Executive Order 12866.
a. The Service does not anticipate that
this rule will have an effect of $100
million or more on the economy. This
rule defines an existing statutory term in
a manner largely consistent with how it
is currently interpreted by State and
Federal agencies. The Service is seeking
comments from the public on any
potential costs and/or benefits
associated with promulgating this
regulatory definition of ‘‘disturb’’ and
providing guidance for avoiding such
disturbance. In particular, the Service is
interested in information about the level
of anticipated conflicts between eagles
and various land use activities to help
determine the expected impacts.
b. This rule will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency. This rule deals solely
with governance of bald and golden
eagle take in the United States. No other
Federal agency has any role in
regulating bald or golden eagle take.
Although some other Federal agencies
regulate activities that impact wildlife
(including eagles) and such impacts
may constitute take, the definition of
‘‘disturb’’ promulgated by this rule is
similar to existing operative
interpretations of the term.
c. This rule does not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
or obligations of their recipients. No
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs are associated with the
regulation of bald or golden eagle take.
d. This rule may raise novel legal or
policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Department of the Interior certifies that
this document will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Description of Small Entities Affected
by the Rule. This rule applies to any
individual, government entity, or
business entity that undertakes or
wishes to undertake any activity that
may disturb bald or golden eagles. It is
not possible to define precisely or
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
HSROBINSON on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
enumerate these entities because of
uncertainty concerning their plans for
future actions and incomplete scientific
knowledge of which activities in
specific cases will disturb bald or
golden eagles. Small entities that are
most likely to engage in activities that
may disturb bald or golden eagles
include: Small businesses that are
engaged in construction of residential,
industrial, and commercial
developments, small timber companies,
small mining operations, and small
governments and small organizations
engaged in construction of utilities,
recreational areas, and other facilities.
These may include tribal governments,
town and community governments,
water districts, irrigation districts, ports,
parks and recreation districts, and
others.
Expected Impact on Small Entities.
The rule defines the term ‘‘disturb,’’
which is contained in the definition of
‘‘take’’ in the BGEPA. The definition is
consistent with the Service’s
interpretation of ‘‘disturb’’ and this
interpretation will remain unchanged
regardless of whether this rule is
implemented. This codification of the
Service’s definition of ‘‘disturb’’ does
not change existing law and, therefore,
does not impose any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
costs on any small entities.
Promulgation of the rule and the
accompanying National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines provides clear
guidance to all parties that engage in
activities that could potentially disturb
eagles. Improved compliance with
existing laws may result in additional
costs to regulated entities. Conversely,
promulgation of the rule and guidelines
may decrease the costs of complying
with the BGEPA by reducing
uncertainty and enhancing resolution of
potential conflicts between human
activities and eagles.
Description of steps the Service has
taken to minimize the economic impact
of the rule on small entities. The Service
is seeking comments on its draft
guidelines and definition, including
suggestions for ways to structure the
guidelines to minimize the burden on
small entities while providing
appropriate protection for the bald eagle
under the BGEPA. The Service is also
seeking comments that provide
examples of effects on small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In
accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.):
a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. This rulemaking will not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:36 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State
government or private entities.
b. This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year; i.e., it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Revisions to State regulations are not
required; codifying the definition of
‘‘disturb’’ under the BGEPA does not
require any future action by State or
local governments.
Takings (E.O. 12630). In accordance
with Executive Order 12630, the rule
does not have significant takings
implications. This is an interpretive
rule, defining the statutory term
‘‘disturb’’ under the BGEPA. The rule
promulgates a definition of ‘‘disturb’’
that is consistent with working
definitions currently applied to private
property, and will be used in
conjunction with guidelines that
provide greater flexibility than existing
guidelines used by the Service to advise
landowners regarding how to avoid
disturbing bald eagles. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132). In
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
the rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule will not interfere with the
States’ ability to manage themselves or
their funds. Defining a term within the
prohibitions of BGEPA will not result in
significant economic impacts because
this definition is consistent with the
meaning of the term as currently
interpreted by the Service and the
States. A Federalism Assessment is not
required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988). In
accordance with Executive Order 12988,
the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Government-to-Government
Relationship with Tribes. In accordance
with the President’s memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951) and 512 DM 2, 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
Tribes’ ability to manage themselves or
their funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This
proposed rule does not require any
information collection from the public.
No OMB control number is required.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8267
National Environmental Policy Act. If
warranted, the Service will prepare an
environmental assessment of this
proposed action, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act. If
undertaken, the environmental review
of this action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), National Environmental Policy
Act regulations, and policies and
procedures of the Service for complying
with those regulations.
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. Send a copy of any
comments pertaining to how we could
make this rule easier to understand to:
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You may also e-mail comments on the
clarity of this rule to: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Public Comment Invited
Interested persons may submit written
comments, suggestions, or objections
regarding the proposed regulations.
Correspondence should be sent to the
address given at the beginning of this
proposed rulemaking under the
ADDRESSES section. Please submit
Internet comments to
BaldEagle_ProposedRule@fws.gov in
ASCII file format and avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn:
RIN 1018–AT94’’ in your e-mail subject
header, and your full name and return
address in the body of your message.
Please note that the Internet address
BaldEagle_ProposedRule@fws.gov will
be closed at the termination of the
public comment period.
We will take into consideration the
relevant comments, suggestions, or
objections that are received by the
deadline indicated above in DATES.
These comments, suggestions, or
objections, and any additional
information received, may lead us to
adopt a final rulemaking that differs
from this proposal.
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during normal business hours.
Individual respondents may request that
we withhold their home addresses from
the rulemaking record, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in
which we would withhold from the
rulemaking record a respondent’s
identity, as allowable by law. If you
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
8268
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 22
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
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 22—EAGLE PERMITS
1. The authority citation for part 22
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668a; 16 U.S.C. 703–
712; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544.
2. In § 22.3, revise the heading and
introductory paragraph and add a
definition for ‘‘disturb’’ in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
§ 22.3
Definitions.
In addition to definitions contained in
part 10 of this subchapter, the following
definitions apply within this part 22:
*
*
*
*
*
Disturb means to agitate or bother a
bald or golden eagle to the degree that
interferes with or interrupts normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits,
causing injury, death, or nest
abandonment.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 06–1440 Filed 2–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
HSROBINSON on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50 CFR Part 228
[I.D. 020806A]
Taking of Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga
Whales by Alaska Natives
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:36 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) allows NMFS to
regulate the subsistence harvest of
marine mammals by Alaska Natives
when the affected stock of marine
mammals is depleted and after the
opportunity for a formal hearing on the
proposed regulations. After designating
the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales as
depleted, NMFS proposed regulations to
limit the subsistence harvest from this
stock. In December 2000, a formal
hearing was conducted on the proposed
regulations. In August 2004, a second
formal hearing was conducted on
proposed long term harvest regulations
from 2005 through the CI beluga whale’s
recovery. The Administrative Law Judge
presiding in the August 2004 hearings
submitted his recommended decision to
the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries (AA) on November 8, 2005.
The Judge’s recommended decision is
available for public review, and NMFS
solicits comments on his
recommendations.
Comments must be received by
March 8, 2006
ADDRESSES: Copies of the recommended
decision may be reviewed and/or copied
at the NMFS, Protected Resource
Division, 222 West 7th Ave. Room 517,
Anchorage, AK 99512; or at the Alaska
Regional Office, Protected Resource
Division, 709 W 9th St. Room 420,
Juneau, AK, 99802. The recommended
decision is also available on the Internet
(see Electronic Access). Copies of the
recommended decision and the entire
record of the hearing may be reviewed
and/or copied at the Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, Alaska Region,
NMFS, Attn: Lori Durall. Comments
may be submitted by:
• Mail: PO Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802
• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street,
Room 420A, Juneau, AK
• Fax: 907–586–7557
• E-mail: CIB-MMPA-ALJrecommended-decision@noaa.gov.
Please identify electronic comments
with the header: CI Beluga ALJ decision.
E-mail comments, with or without
attachments, are limited to five (5)
megabytes.
• Webform at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Mahoney, NMFS Alaska Region,
Anchorage Field Office, (907) 271–5006;
or Kaja Brix, NMFS, Alaska Region,
(907) 586–7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
The recommended decision, proposed
regulations, and other documents
related to the administrative hearing
and recovery effort are available on the
Internet at the following address: https://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/
whales/beluga.htm.
Background
NMFS initially proposed regulations
limiting the subsistence harvest of
beluga whales in Cook Inlet, AK on
October 4, 2000 (65 FR 59164). The
proposed rule’s objectives are to recover
the depleted stock of Cook Inlet beluga
whales to its optimum sustainable
population level while preserving the
traditional subsistence use of the marine
mammals by Alaska Natives.
Pursuant to Section 101(b) (3) and
section 103(d) of the MMPA, an
administrative hearing was held prior to
regulations being prescribed to limit the
subsistence harvest of marine mammals
by Alaska Natives. Judge Parlen L.
McKenna convened hearings on the
proposed rule in December 2000 and
August 2004, in Anchorage, AK.
On November 8, 2005, Judge
McKenna submitted his recommended
decision to the AA for the proposed
regulation governing the taking of Cook
Inlet, Alaska, beluga whales by Alaska
Natives. Federal regulations (50 CFR
228.20) require the AA to make the
recommended decision available for
public review and comment for a 20–
day period. Following the 20–day
comment period, the AA must make a
final decision on the proposed
regulations, which must include the
following:
(1) A statement containing a
description of the history of the
proceeding;
(2) Findings on the issues of fact with
the reasons therefor; and
(3) Rulings on issues of law.
The AA’s final decision may affirm,
modify, or set aside, in whole or in part,
the recommended findings, conclusions
and decision of the hearing’s presiding
officer.
The AA’s decision must be published
in the Federal Register and final
regulations shall be promulgated with
the decision. In accordance with the
administrative regulations, NMFS
solicits public comments on Judge
McKenna’s recommended decision.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8265-8268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1440]
[[Page 8265]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 22
RIN 1018-AT94
Protection of Bald Eagles; Definition
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In anticipation of possible removal (delisting) of the bald
eagle in the 48 contiguous States from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) is proposing a definition of
``disturb'' under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
guide post-delisting bald eagle management. Because BGEPA's prohibition
against disturbance applies to both bald and golden eagles, the
definition will apply to golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) as well as
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
If the bald eagle is delisted, the BGEPA will become the primary
law protecting bald eagles. BGEPA prohibits take of bald and golden
eagles and provides a statutory definition of ``take'' that includes
``disturb.'' Although disturbing eagles has been prohibited by BGEPA
since the statute's enactment, the meaning of ``disturb'' has never
been explicitly defined by the Service or by the courts. To define
``disturb,'' we rely on the common meaning of the term as applied to
the conservation intent of BGEPA and the working definitions of
``disturb'' currently used by Federal and State agencies to manage bald
eagles. This proposed definition of disturb will apply to Alaska, where
the bald eagle has never been listed under the ESA, as well as the 48
contiguous States. (Eagles do not occur in Hawaii.)
In addition to this proposed rulemaking, the Service is soliciting
public comment on two related proposals published separately in this
part of today's Federal Register. First, the Service is re-opening the
public comment period on the proposed rule to remove the bald eagle
from the list of threatened species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); we originally proposed delisting the bald eagle on July 6, 1999
(64 FR 36453). Second, we are soliciting comment on draft National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines.
DATES: We will accept written comments on this proposed rule until May
17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and other information, identified by
RIN 1018-AT94, by any of the following methods:
Mail: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Attn: RIN 1018-AT94.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Same address as above.
E-mail: BaldEagle--ProposedRule@fws.gov. Include ``RIN
1018-AT94'' in the subject line of the message.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting comments, file format and other
information about electronic filing, and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the ``Public Comments Invited'' heading at the
end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In the
event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit
your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
The complete file for this proposed rule is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room
4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. Please call 703-358-1714 to make
an appointment to view the files.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliza Savage, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, (see ADDRESSES section); or via e-mail at: Eliza--
Savage@fws.gov; telephone: (703) 358-2329; or facsimile: (703) 358-
2217.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
For a discussion of the history of the bald eagle's status in the
United States, including legislative and regulatory actions taken to
protect and recover bald eagle populations, see our re-opening of the
comment period on the proposed rule to delist the bald eagle, published
separately in this part of today's Federal Register.
Bald Eagle National Management Guidelines
Since the bald eagle was listed under the ESA, the ESA has been the
primary law protecting bald eagles in the 48 contiguous States. If the
bald eagle is delisted under the ESA, the BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668-668d)
will become the primary law protecting bald eagles in the lower 48, as
it has continued to be in Alaska where the bald eagle was never listed
under the ESA. The BGEPA protects both bald and golden eagles. It
prohibits take of both species and provides a statutory definition of
``take'' that includes ``disturb.'' To provide guidance to land
managers, landowners, and others who plan activities in the vicinity of
bald eagles, the Service has developed draft National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines. (See our notice of availability of the draft
guidelines published separately in this part of today's Federal
Register.) In the event the bald eagle is delisted, the guidelines will
provide information to the public regarding how to avoid disturbing
bald eagles. Secondly, the guidelines include additional recommended
practices that can benefit bald eagles. The draft guidelines are based
on the definition of ``disturb'' that we are proposing in this
rulemaking.
Although the Guidelines are not law and strict adherence to them is
not mandatory, they will benefit both eagles and people by: (1)
Publicizing the provisions of the BGEPA and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) that continue to protect bald eagles, in order
to reduce the possibility that people will violate those laws, (2)
advising landowners, land managers and the general public of the
potential for various human activities to disturb bald eagles, and (3)
encouraging land management practices that benefit bald eagles and
their habitat. We are soliciting public input on the guidelines. To
obtain a copy, see the Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for
public comment published separately in this part of today's Federal
Register.
Description of the Proposed Rulemaking
Through an amendment to 50 CFR 22.3, we propose to define the term
``disturb'' under the BGEPA. Disturbing bald and golden eagles is
prohibited because BGEPA prohibits ``take'' of eagles, and defines
``take'' to include ``disturb.'' Until now, the meaning of ``disturb''
has never been explicitly defined by the Service or by the courts. To
define ``disturb,'' we rely on the common meaning of the term as
applied to the conservation intent of BGEPA and the working definitions
of ``disturb'' currently used by Federal and State agencies to manage
bald and golden eagles.
``Disturb'' is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language (4th ed., 2000) as:
``1. To break up or destroy the tranquillity or settled state
of: ``Subterranean fires and deep unrest disturb the whole area''
(Rachel
[[Page 8266]]
Carson). 2. To trouble emotionally or mentally; upset. 3a. To
interfere with; interrupt: noise that disturbed my sleep. b. To
intrude on; inconvenience: Constant calls disturbed her work. 4. To
put out of order; disarrange.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2004) defines disturb as:
``1a: to interfere with : INTERRUPT. b: to alter the position or
arrangement of. c: to upset the natural and especially the
ecological balance or relations of . 2a:
to destroy the tranquillity or composure of. b: to throw into
disorder. c: ALARM. d: to put to inconvenience.''
Thus, disturb can be applied to individuals as well as to natural
forces and universal concepts (e.g., ``disturbing the peace''). As
applied to individuals, the concept of disturb implies and requires
there be a psychological or physiological component--essentially an
agitating effect--on the individual being disturbed.
Biological studies of eagle behavior indicate that eagles are
particularly vulnerable to interference during territory establishment,
courtship, egg-laying, incubation, and parenting of nestlings. A wide
variety of activities, including various types of development, resource
extraction, and recreational activities near sensitive areas such as
nesting, feeding, and roosting sites can interrupt or interfere with
the behavioral patterns of eagles. Further disruption may also result
from human activity that occurs after the initial habitat alterations
and construction activities (e.g., residential occupancy or the use of
commercial buildings, roads, piers, and boat launching ramps).
When the BGEPA was enacted, Congress intended it to be the primary
vehicle by which eagles would be protected from extinction, and as such
Congress provided a broad prohibition in its definition of ``take,'' by
defining it to include: pursue, shoot, shoot at, wound, kill, capture,
trap, collect, molest or disturb. (Congress added the term ``poison''
to the definition in 1972 (P.L. 92-535 [86 Stat. 1064)], October 23,
1972).) In keeping with the conservation intent of the BGEPA, we have
determined that the following biological premises are necessary to
secure long-term protections for the bald and golden eagle populations:
prevention of nest abandonment and prevention of death or injury
resulting from interference with normal breeding, feeding, and
sheltering habits.
Accordingly, we propose to define ``disturb'' under the BGEPA as
follows: ``To agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree
that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering habits, causing injury, death, or nest abandonment.'' In
addition to immediate impacts, this definition encompasses impacts that
result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously
used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the
eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree
that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering habits and causes injury, death, or nest abandonment. This
definition is consistent with how ``disturb'' has been interpreted in
the past by the Service and other Federal and State wildlife and land
management agencies.
The definition is intended to cover situations where the
interference or interruption of an eagle's breeding, feeding, or
sheltering habits causes injury or death not just to themselves, but
more typically to other eagles: the juveniles or eggs. For example: if
adult eagles are repeatedly flushed from a nest, their young may
overheat and die, or their eggs may cool too much and fail to hatch.
Biological literature indicates that factors such as the proximity,
frequency, magnitude, and duration of activities, along with the
presence or absence of vegetative buffers and topographic changes in
terrain, determine how an activity impacts eagles. Vegetation
surrounding a nest tree or concentration area may serve to buffer,
conceal, or muffle human activities from the eagle's visual or auditory
awareness. Therefore, site-specific factors can affect the likelihood
and degree of impacts to the eagles. Individual eagles and pairs of
eagles demonstrate remarkably different thresholds for disturbance. On-
site evaluations of the terrain, existing vegetation, existing human
activities and/or development, sight lines from the nest, and observed
behaviors of the eagles in that particular locality will help to
determine whether disturbance is likely to occur on a case-by-case
basis. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines will provide
assistance to people whose activities may affect bald eagles based on
these varying factors (see our notice of availability of the guidelines
published separately in this part of today's Federal Register).
Required Determinations
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211). On May 18, 2001,
the President issued an Executive Order addressing regulations that
affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866). This rule is a
significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). OMB makes the final determination of
significance under Executive Order 12866.
a. The Service does not anticipate that this rule will have an
effect of $100 million or more on the economy. This rule defines an
existing statutory term in a manner largely consistent with how it is
currently interpreted by State and Federal agencies. The Service is
seeking comments from the public on any potential costs and/or benefits
associated with promulgating this regulatory definition of ``disturb''
and providing guidance for avoiding such disturbance. In particular,
the Service is interested in information about the level of anticipated
conflicts between eagles and various land use activities to help
determine the expected impacts.
b. This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule
deals solely with governance of bald and golden eagle take in the
United States. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating bald
or golden eagle take. Although some other Federal agencies regulate
activities that impact wildlife (including eagles) and such impacts may
constitute take, the definition of ``disturb'' promulgated by this rule
is similar to existing operative interpretations of the term.
c. This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients. No entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
are associated with the regulation of bald or golden eagle take.
d. This rule may raise novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department of the Interior
certifies that this document will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Description of Small Entities Affected by the Rule. This rule
applies to any individual, government entity, or business entity that
undertakes or wishes to undertake any activity that may disturb bald or
golden eagles. It is not possible to define precisely or
[[Page 8267]]
enumerate these entities because of uncertainty concerning their plans
for future actions and incomplete scientific knowledge of which
activities in specific cases will disturb bald or golden eagles. Small
entities that are most likely to engage in activities that may disturb
bald or golden eagles include: Small businesses that are engaged in
construction of residential, industrial, and commercial developments,
small timber companies, small mining operations, and small governments
and small organizations engaged in construction of utilities,
recreational areas, and other facilities. These may include tribal
governments, town and community governments, water districts,
irrigation districts, ports, parks and recreation districts, and
others.
Expected Impact on Small Entities. The rule defines the term
``disturb,'' which is contained in the definition of ``take'' in the
BGEPA. The definition is consistent with the Service's interpretation
of ``disturb'' and this interpretation will remain unchanged regardless
of whether this rule is implemented. This codification of the Service's
definition of ``disturb'' does not change existing law and, therefore,
does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
costs on any small entities. Promulgation of the rule and the
accompanying National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines provides clear
guidance to all parties that engage in activities that could
potentially disturb eagles. Improved compliance with existing laws may
result in additional costs to regulated entities. Conversely,
promulgation of the rule and guidelines may decrease the costs of
complying with the BGEPA by reducing uncertainty and enhancing
resolution of potential conflicts between human activities and eagles.
Description of steps the Service has taken to minimize the economic
impact of the rule on small entities. The Service is seeking comments
on its draft guidelines and definition, including suggestions for ways
to structure the guidelines to minimize the burden on small entities
while providing appropriate protection for the bald eagle under the
BGEPA. The Service is also seeking comments that provide examples of
effects on small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):
a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State government or private entities.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year; i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Revisions to State
regulations are not required; codifying the definition of ``disturb''
under the BGEPA does not require any future action by State or local
governments.
Takings (E.O. 12630). In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the
rule does not have significant takings implications. This is an
interpretive rule, defining the statutory term ``disturb'' under the
BGEPA. The rule promulgates a definition of ``disturb'' that is
consistent with working definitions currently applied to private
property, and will be used in conjunction with guidelines that provide
greater flexibility than existing guidelines used by the Service to
advise landowners regarding how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. A
takings implication assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132). In accordance with Executive Order 13132,
the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not
interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds.
Defining a term within the prohibitions of BGEPA will not result in
significant economic impacts because this definition is consistent with
the meaning of the term as currently interpreted by the Service and the
States. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988). In accordance with Executive
Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule
does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements
of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
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) and 512 DM 2, 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 Tribes' ability to
manage themselves or their funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rule does not require any
information collection from the public. No OMB control number is
required.
National Environmental Policy Act. If warranted, the Service will
prepare an environmental assessment of this proposed action, pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act. If undertaken, the
environmental review of this action will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act
regulations, and policies and procedures of the Service for complying
with those regulations.
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. Send a copy of
any comments pertaining to how we could make this rule easier to
understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may
also e-mail comments on the clarity of this rule to: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Public Comment Invited
Interested persons may submit written comments, suggestions, or
objections regarding the proposed regulations. Correspondence should be
sent to the address given at the beginning of this proposed rulemaking
under the ADDRESSES section. Please submit Internet comments to
BaldEagle--ProposedRule@fws.gov in ASCII file format and avoid the use
of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include
``Attn: RIN 1018-AT94'' in your e-mail subject header, and your full
name and return address in the body of your message. Please note that
the Internet address BaldEagle--ProposedRule@fws.gov will be closed at
the termination of the public comment period.
We will take into consideration the relevant comments, suggestions,
or objections that are received by the deadline indicated above in
DATES. These comments, suggestions, or objections, and any additional
information received, may lead us to adopt a final rulemaking that
differs from this proposal.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you
[[Page 8268]]
wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 22
Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
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 22--EAGLE PERMITS
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668a; 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 16 U.S.C. 1531-
1544.
2. In Sec. 22.3, revise the heading and introductory paragraph and
add a definition for ``disturb'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.3 Definitions.
In addition to definitions contained in part 10 of this subchapter,
the following definitions apply within this part 22:
* * * * *
Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the
degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering habits, causing injury, death, or nest abandonment.
* * * * *
Dated: November 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-1440 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P