Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Migratory Birds From Buildings, 14066-14069 [E7-5120]
Download as PDF
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
14066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
section 5335 reports may only submit data
for transit services that they directly operate
and purchase under contract from public
agencies and/or private carriers.
Separate and complete section 5335 reports
must be submitted by or for each purchased
transportation service provider that operates
100 or more revenue vehicles for the
purchased service during the maximum
service period. The reporting requirements
include the following major segments, which
are based on information assembled through
the National Transit Database Uniform
System of Accounts:
1. Capital report.
2. Revenue report.
3. Expense report.
4. Nonfinancial service and operating data
reports.
5. Miscellaneous auxiliary questionnaires
and subsidiary schedules.
6. Vehicle Fleet Data.
7. Data Declarations.
(2) The section 5335 Reporting System
includes two data declarations.
(a) The Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Certification.
The CEO of each reporting agency is
required to submit a certification with each
annual section 5335 report. The certification
must attest:
• To the accuracy of all data contained in
the section 5335 report;
• That all data submitted in the section
5335 report are in accord with section 5335
definitions;
• If applicable, that the reporting agency’s
accounting system used to derive all data
submitted in the section 5335 report is the
system set forth in the National Transit
Database Uniform System of Accounts and
that a section 5335 report using this system
was certified by an independent auditor in a
previous report year;
• If applicable, the fact that the reporting
agency’s internal accounting system is other
than the National Transit Database Uniform
System of Accounts, and that its: (i)
Accounting system uses the accrual basis of
accounting, (ii) accounting system is directly
translated, using a clear audit trail, to the
accounting treatment and categories specified
by the National Transit Database Uniform
System of Accounts, and (iii) accounting
system and direct translation to the National
Transit Database Uniform System of
Accounts are the same as those certified by
an independent auditor in a previous
reporting year; and
• That a 100% count of trips and
passenger mile data for each mode/type of
service meets FTA requirements.
(b) Auditor Statement on Section 5335
Financial Data Reporting Forms and Section
5307 or Section 5311 Data.
Reporting agencies must submit with their
section 5335 report a statement signed by an
independent public accountant or other
responsible independent entity such as a
state audit agency. This statement must
express an opinion on whether the financial
data reporting forms in the section 5335
report present fairly, in all material respects,
the information required to be set forth
therein in accordance with the National
Transit Database Uniform System of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Mar 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Accounts. The statement shall also indicate
whether any of the reporting forms or data
elements do not conform to the section 5335
requirements, and describe the discrepancies.
The statement must consider both required
and optional data entries.
Each agency is required to file an Auditor
Statement unless it received a written waiver
from FTA. The criteria in either Condition I
or Condition II for granting a financial data
waiver are:
Condition I. The reporting agency (1) has
adopted the National Transit Database
Uniform System of Accounts and (2) has
previously submitted a section 5335 report
that was compiled using the National Transit
Database Uniform System of Accounts and
was reviewed by an independent auditor; or
Condition II. The reporting agency (1) uses
an internal accounting system other than the
accounting system prescribed by the National
Transit Database Uniform System of
Accounts, (2) uses the accrual basis of
accounting, (3) directly translates the system
and accounting categories, using a clear audit
trail, to the accounting treatment and
categories specified by the National Transit
Database Uniform System of Accounts, and
(4) has previously submitted a section 5335
report that was compiled using the same
internal accounting system and translation to
the National Transit Database Uniform
System of Accounts and was reviewed by an
independent auditor.
For agencies that have received a waiver,
the CEO annual Certification must verify that
the financial data meet one of the above two
conditions.
Additionally, all reporting agencies that are
in or serve urbanized areas with populations
of 200,000 or more and whose report covers
100 or more vehicles in annual maximum
service across all modes and types of service
must have an independent auditor review all
section 5335 data used in the section 5307
formula allocation. The statement should
discuss, by mode and type of service:
Directional route miles, vehicle revenue
miles, passenger miles, and operating cost,
and include both directly operated and
purchased service. The independent,
certified public accountant shall perform the
verification in accordance with the
‘‘Statements on Standards for Attestation
Engagements’’ issued by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The
specific procedures to be reviewed are
described in the most recent Section 5335
Reporting Manual.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of
March, 2007.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–5417 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
RIN 1018–AV10
Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of
Migratory Birds From Buildings
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose changes in the
regulations governing migratory bird
permitting. We propose to amend 50
CFR part 21 to allow removal of
migratory birds (other than federally
listed threatened or endangered species,
bald eagles, and golden eagles) from
buildings in which the birds may pose
a threat to themselves, to public health
and safety, or to commercial interests.
DATES: Send comments on this proposal
by May 25, 2007.
ADDRESSES: For detailed instructions on
submitting comments, please see
‘‘Public Participation’’ below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist,
Division of Migratory Bird Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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. The 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).
Raptors (birds of prey) are afforded
Federal protection by the 1972
amendment to the Convention for the
Protection of Migratory Birds and Game
Animals, February 7, 1936, United
States-Mexico, as amended; the
Convention between the United States
and Japan for the Protection of
Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction
and Their Environment, September 19,
1974; and the Convention Between the
United States of America and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia)
Concerning the Conservation of
Migratory Birds and Their Environment,
November 26, 1976. A list of migratory
bird species protected by the MBTA can
be found at 50 CFR 10.13.
To simplify removal of migratory
birds from buildings in which their
presence may be a threat to the birds, to
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
public health and safety, or to
commercial interests, we propose to
allow the removal of any migratory bird,
except a threatened or endangered
species, a bald eagle, or a golden eagle,
from any building in which a bird might
be trapped, without requiring a
migratory bird permit to do so. The bird
must be captured using a humane
method and promptly released to the
wild. This regulation does not allow
removal of birds or nests from the
outside of buildings without a permit.
We believe that this regulatory
addition will facilitate removal of birds
from buildings—an action that would
otherwise require a migratory bird
permit. Our proposed changes are
detailed below, in the Proposed
Regulation Promulgation section of this
document.
Public Participation
You may submit comments, identified
by RIN 1018–AV10, by any of the
following methods:
• E-mail address for comments:
BirdsinBuildings@fws.gov. Include RIN
number 1018–AV10 in the subject line
of the message.
• Fax: 703–358–2217.
• Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Mail Stop MBSP–4107,
Arlington, VA 22203–1610.
• Hand Delivery: Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, VA
22203–1610.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Following review and consideration
of comments, we will issue a final rule
on the proposed regulation changes.
Instructions: When submitting
electronic comments, please include
your name and return address in your
message, and identify it as comments on
RIN 1018–AV10 in the subject line of
your message.
When submitting written comments,
please include your name and return
address in your letter and identify it as
comments on RIN 1018–AV10. To
facilitate compilation of the
Administrative Record for this action,
you must submit written comments on
81⁄2-inch-by-11-inch paper.
All comments on the proposed rule,
including any personal information
received, will be available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at Room 4091 at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, VA 22203–1610. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Mar 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
complete file for this proposed rule is
available, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the same
address. You may call 703–358–1825 to
make an appointment to view the file.
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours. An
individual respondent may request that
we withhold his or her home address
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
wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. 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. We
will not consider anonymous
comments.
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order (E.O.) 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? (A ‘‘section’’
appears in bold type and is preceded by
the symbol ‘‘§ ’’and a numbered
heading; for example: ‘‘§ 21.12-General
exceptions to permit requirements.’’) (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 the make the rule easier to
understand?
Send a copy of any comments that
concern 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 also
may e-mail comments to
Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14067
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in E.O.
12866, this rule is not a significant
regulatory action. The Office of
Management and Budget makes the final
determination of significance under E.O.
12866.
a. This proposed rule would not raise
novel legal or policy issues. The
proposed provision is in compliance
with other laws, policies, and
regulations.
b. This rule would not have an annual
economic effect of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis thus is
not required. There are negligible costs
associated with this rule.
c. This rule would not create
inconsistencies with other agencies’
actions. The rule deals solely with
governance of migratory bird permitting
in the United States. No other Federal
agency has any role in regulating
activities with migratory birds.
d. This rule would not materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. There are
no entitlements, grants, user fees, or
loan programs associated with the
regulation of birds in buildings.
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. We have examined this rule’s
potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, and have determined that this
action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, because the
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
14068
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
changes we are proposing are intended
primarily to simplify removal of birds
from structures in which the birds may
either pose a threat to public health and
safety or commercial interests, or be at
risk themselves.
The costs associated with this change
to our regulations would be negligible or
non-existent. Consequently, we certify
that because this proposed rule would
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
SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
a. This rule would 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, 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. Actions under the proposed
regulation would not affect small
government activities in any significant
way.
b. This rule would 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.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the
rule would not have significant takings
implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required. This rule
would not contain a provision for taking
of private property.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federalism
This rule would not have sufficient
Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment
under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere
with the States’ ability to manage
themselves or their funds. No significant
economic impacts are expected to result
from allowing individuals, businesses,
or government offices to remove
migratory birds from buildings.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Mar 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the
Office of the Solicitor has determined
that the rule would not unduly burden
the judicial system and meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined these regulations under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
There would be no new information
collection requirements associated with
this change to our regulations. We may
not collect or sponsor, nor is a person
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this 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). A change to our regulations
allowing the removal of migratory birds
from buildings would not have a
significant environmental impact.
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
effects. This rule would not interfere
with the Tribes’ ability to manage
themselves or their funds or to regulate
migratory bird activities on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
(E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements
of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Because this rule would
affect only removal of birds from
structures in limited circumstances, it is
not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866, and would not significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Environmental Consequences of the
Proposed Action
The change we propose is to allow
people to remove birds protected under
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from
buildings. We do not believe that there
are significant environmental impacts of
this action.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect the
proposed action to have discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. This rule
would not alter the take of migratory
birds from the wild. It would not change
migratory bird populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species.
The proposed regulation is for migratory
birds other than threatened or
endangered species. It would not affect
threatened or endangered species or
habitats important to them.
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 change to our regulations
would not affect listed species.
Author
The author of this rulemaking is Dr.
George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203–
1610.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, we propose to amend part 21
of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
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.
2. Amend § 21.12 by:
a. Revising the introductory paragraph
and paragraph (a);
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (b) (1), (b)(2), and
(c) and adding a heading to new
paragraph (b);
c. Adding a new heading to new
paragraph (c); and
d. Adding a new paragraph (d), to
read as set forth below.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
§ 21.12 General exceptions to permit
requirements.
The following persons or entities
under the following conditions are
exempt from the permit requirements:
(a) Employees of the Department of
the Interior (DOI): DOI employees
authorized to enforce the provisions of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3,
1918, as amended (40 Stat. 755; 16
U.S.C. 703–711), may, without a permit,
take or otherwise acquire, hold in
custody, transport, and dispose of
migratory birds or their parts, nests, or
eggs as necessary in performing their
official duties.
(b) Employees of certain public and
private institutions:
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(c) Licensed veterinarians:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) General public: Any person may
remove a migratory bird from the
interior of a building or structure under
the following conditions. If you need
advice on dealing with a trapped bird,
you should contact your closest Fish
and Wildlife Service office or your State
wildlife agency.
(1) You may humanely remove a
trapped migratory bird from the interior
of a residence or a commercial or
government building without a Federal
permit if the migratory bird:
(i) Poses a health threat (for example,
through damage to foodstuffs);
(ii) Is attacking humans, or poses a
threat to human safety because of its
activities (such as opening and closing
automatic doors);
(iii) Poses a threat to commercial
interests, such as through damage to
products for sale; or
(iv) May injure itself because it is
trapped.
(2) You must use a humane method to
capture the bird or birds. You may not
use adhesive traps to which birds may
adhere (such as glue traps) or any other
method of capture likely to harm the
bird.
(3) After capture, you must promptly
release the bird or birds to the wild in
habitat suitable for the species.
(4) If a bird is injured or orphaned
during the removal, the property owner
is responsible for promptly transferring
it to a federally permitted migratory bird
rehabilitator.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Mar 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
(5) You may not lethally take a
migratory bird for these purposes. If
your actions to remove the trapped
migratory bird are likely to result in its
lethal take, you must possess a Federal
Migratory Bird Permit. However, if a
bird you are trying to remove dies, you
must dispose of the carcass unless you
have reason to believe that a museum or
scientific institution might be able to
use it. In that case, you should contact
your nearest Fish and Wildlife Service
office or your State wildlife agency
about donating the carcass.
(6) For birds of species on the Federal
List of Threatened or Endangered
Wildlife, provided at 50 CFR 17.11(h),
you may need a Federal threatened or
endangered species permit before
removing the birds (see 50 CFR 17.21
and 50 CFR 17.31).
(7) You will need a permit from your
regional migratory bird permits office to
remove a bald eagle or a golden eagle
from a building (see 50 CFR Part 22).
(8) Your action must comply with
State and local regulations and
ordinances. You may need a State,
tribal, or territorial permit before you
can legally remove the bird or birds.
(9) If a nest, eggs, or nestlings are
present, you must seek the assistance of
a federally-permitted migratory bird
rehabilitator in removing them. The
rehabilitator is then responsible for
handling them properly.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7–5120 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[I.D. 031407A]
RIN 0648–AU03
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Salmon Bycatch
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
submitted Amendment 84 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14069
Management Area (FMP). If approved,
Amendment 84 would exempt vessels
participating in an inter-cooperative
agreement (ICA) to reduce salmon
bycatch from Chinook and chum salmon
savings area closures, and exempt
vessels participating in non-pollock
trawl fisheries from the chum salmon
savings area. This action is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is
necessary to reduce salmon bycatch in
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI).
DATES: Comments on Amendment 84
must be received on or before May 25,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer.
Comments may be submitted by:
• Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802;
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK;
• FAX to 907–586–7557;
• E-mail to BSA84–A-NOA@noaa.gov
and include in the subject line of the Email comment the document identifier:
Amendment 84. E-mail comments, with
or without attachments, are limited to 5
megabytes; or
• Webform at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
Copies of Amendment 84 and the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA)
prepared for this action may be obtained
from the NMFS Alaska Region at the
address above, from the Alaska Region
website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov or
by calling the Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at (907)
586–7228.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Anderson, 907–586–7228, or
jason.anderson@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
each regional fishery management
council submit any FMP or FMP
amendment it prepares to NMFS for
review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act also requires that NMFS, upon
receiving an FMP amendment,
immediately publish a notice in the
Federal Register that the FMP or
amendment is available for public
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14066-14069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5120]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
RIN 1018-AV10
Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Migratory Birds From Buildings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose changes in the
regulations governing migratory bird permitting. We propose to amend 50
CFR part 21 to allow removal of migratory birds (other than federally
listed threatened or endangered species, bald eagles, and golden
eagles) from buildings in which the birds may pose a threat to
themselves, to public health and safety, or to commercial interests.
DATES: Send comments on this proposal by May 25, 2007.
ADDRESSES: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, please see
``Public Participation'' below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist,
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
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. The 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). Raptors (birds of prey)
are afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7,
1936, United States-Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the
United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger
of Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the
Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory
Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976. A list of migratory
bird species protected by the MBTA can be found at 50 CFR 10.13.
To simplify removal of migratory birds from buildings in which
their presence may be a threat to the birds, to
[[Page 14067]]
public health and safety, or to commercial interests, we propose to
allow the removal of any migratory bird, except a threatened or
endangered species, a bald eagle, or a golden eagle, from any building
in which a bird might be trapped, without requiring a migratory bird
permit to do so. The bird must be captured using a humane method and
promptly released to the wild. This regulation does not allow removal
of birds or nests from the outside of buildings without a permit.
We believe that this regulatory addition will facilitate removal of
birds from buildings--an action that would otherwise require a
migratory bird permit. Our proposed changes are detailed below, in the
Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this document.
Public Participation
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1018-AV10, by any of the
following methods:
E-mail address for comments: BirdsinBuildings@fws.gov.
Include RIN number 1018-AV10 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 703-358-2217.
Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-
4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
Hand Delivery: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091,
Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Following review and consideration of comments, we will issue a
final rule on the proposed regulation changes.
Instructions: When submitting electronic comments, please include
your name and return address in your message, and identify it as
comments on RIN 1018-AV10 in the subject line of your message.
When submitting written comments, please include your name and
return address in your letter and identify it as comments on RIN 1018-
AV10. To facilitate compilation of the Administrative Record for this
action, you must submit written comments on 8\1/2\-inch-by-11-inch
paper.
All comments on the proposed rule, including any personal
information received, will be available for public inspection during
normal business hours at Room 4091 at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1610. The complete file for this proposed
rule is available, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
same address. You may call 703-358-1825 to make an appointment to view
the file.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. An individual respondent may request that we withhold
his or her home address 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 wish us to withhold your name
and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of
your comment. 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. We will not consider anonymous
comments.
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order (E.O.) 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? (A ``section'' appears
in bold type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. ''and a numbered
heading; for example: ``Sec. 21.12-General exceptions to permit
requirements.'') (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 the make the rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern 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 also may e-mail comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in E.O. 12866, this rule is not a
significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget
makes the final determination of significance under E.O. 12866.
a. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The proposed provision is in compliance with other laws, policies, and
regulations.
b. This rule would not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more, or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity,
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and
economic analysis thus is not required. There are negligible costs
associated with this rule.
c. This rule would not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. The rule deals solely with governance of migratory bird
permitting in the United States. No other Federal agency has any role
in regulating activities with migratory birds.
d. This rule would not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
associated with the regulation of birds in buildings.
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. We have examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because the
[[Page 14068]]
changes we are proposing are intended primarily to simplify removal of
birds from structures in which the birds may either pose a threat to
public health and safety or commercial interests, or be at risk
themselves.
The costs associated with this change to our regulations would be
negligible or non-existent. Consequently, we certify that because this
proposed rule would 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 SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
a. This rule would 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, 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. Actions
under the proposed regulation would not affect small government
activities in any significant way.
b. This rule would 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.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule would not have significant
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
This rule would not contain a provision for taking of private property.
Federalism
This rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not
interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds.
No significant economic impacts are expected to result from allowing
individuals, businesses, or government offices to remove migratory
birds from buildings.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system
and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. There would be no new information collection requirements
associated with this change to our regulations. We may not collect or
sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this 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). A change to our
regulations allowing the removal of migratory birds from buildings
would not have a significant environmental impact.
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 effects. This rule would
not interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their
funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule would
affect only removal of birds from structures in limited circumstances,
it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and would
not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
The change we propose is to allow people to remove birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from buildings. We do not believe
that there are significant environmental impacts of this action.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect the proposed action to have
discernible socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. This rule would not alter the take of
migratory birds from the wild. It would not change migratory bird
populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The proposed regulation is for
migratory birds other than threatened or endangered species. It would
not affect threatened or endangered species or habitats important to
them.
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 change to
our regulations would not affect listed species.
Author
The author of this rulemaking is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 21
of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows.
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
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.
2. Amend Sec. 21.12 by:
a. Revising the introductory paragraph and paragraph (a);
[[Page 14069]]
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (b)
(1), (b)(2), and (c) and adding a heading to new paragraph (b);
c. Adding a new heading to new paragraph (c); and
d. Adding a new paragraph (d), to read as set forth below.
Sec. 21.12 General exceptions to permit requirements.
The following persons or entities under the following conditions
are exempt from the permit requirements:
(a) Employees of the Department of the Interior (DOI): DOI
employees authorized to enforce the provisions of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, as amended (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-
711), may, without a permit, take or otherwise acquire, hold in
custody, transport, and dispose of migratory birds or their parts,
nests, or eggs as necessary in performing their official duties.
(b) Employees of certain public and private institutions:
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(c) Licensed veterinarians:
* * * * *
(d) General public: Any person may remove a migratory bird from the
interior of a building or structure under the following conditions. If
you need advice on dealing with a trapped bird, you should contact your
closest Fish and Wildlife Service office or your State wildlife agency.
(1) You may humanely remove a trapped migratory bird from the
interior of a residence or a commercial or government building without
a Federal permit if the migratory bird:
(i) Poses a health threat (for example, through damage to
foodstuffs);
(ii) Is attacking humans, or poses a threat to human safety because
of its activities (such as opening and closing automatic doors);
(iii) Poses a threat to commercial interests, such as through
damage to products for sale; or
(iv) May injure itself because it is trapped.
(2) You must use a humane method to capture the bird or birds. You
may not use adhesive traps to which birds may adhere (such as glue
traps) or any other method of capture likely to harm the bird.
(3) After capture, you must promptly release the bird or birds to
the wild in habitat suitable for the species.
(4) If a bird is injured or orphaned during the removal, the
property owner is responsible for promptly transferring it to a
federally permitted migratory bird rehabilitator.
(5) You may not lethally take a migratory bird for these purposes.
If your actions to remove the trapped migratory bird are likely to
result in its lethal take, you must possess a Federal Migratory Bird
Permit. However, if a bird you are trying to remove dies, you must
dispose of the carcass unless you have reason to believe that a museum
or scientific institution might be able to use it. In that case, you
should contact your nearest Fish and Wildlife Service office or your
State wildlife agency about donating the carcass.
(6) For birds of species on the Federal List of Threatened or
Endangered Wildlife, provided at 50 CFR 17.11(h), you may need a
Federal threatened or endangered species permit before removing the
birds (see 50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31).
(7) You will need a permit from your regional migratory bird
permits office to remove a bald eagle or a golden eagle from a building
(see 50 CFR Part 22).
(8) Your action must comply with State and local regulations and
ordinances. You may need a State, tribal, or territorial permit before
you can legally remove the bird or birds.
(9) If a nest, eggs, or nestlings are present, you must seek the
assistance of a federally-permitted migratory bird rehabilitator in
removing them. The rehabilitator is then responsible for handling them
properly.
Dated: March 2, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-5120 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P