Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Migratory Birds From Buildings, 56926-56929 [E7-19712]
Download as PDF
56926
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 193 / Friday, October 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
WUPA, operating on Channel 69 (800–
806 MHz) in Allentown, Pennsylvania
and Atlanta, respectively. These
NPSPAC licensees (collectively,
Petitioners) expressed concern that if
they retune to the new NPSPAC band
(806–809 MHz) before the February 17,
2009 DTV transition date, they will
receive out-of-band emission (OOBE)
interference on their new NPSPAC
channels from the Allentown and
Atlanta Channel 69 incumbents. The
Commission granted Petitioners’
requests in part and will allow them to
delay the commencement of their
infrastructure retune until March 1,
2009. However, the Commission
directed Petitioners to proceed with
(and Sprint to pay for) planning and
other preparatory rebanding activity
(e.g., replacement and reprogramming of
mobiles) that can occur prior to the DTV
transition date.
16. Finally, the Commission delegated
authority to the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau to consider
future requests by 800 MHz licensees to
extend the 36-month deadline as it
applies to the rebanding of their
particular systems. The Commission
directed the Bureau to subject such
extension requests to a high level of
scrutiny. Licensees submitting requests
to the Bureau will be expected to
demonstrate that they have worked
diligently and in good faith to complete
rebanding expeditiously, and that the
amount of additional time requested is
no more than is reasonably necessary to
complete the rebanding process.
Ordering Clauses
17. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), 309,
316, 332, 337 and 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), 309,
316, 332, 337 and 405, this Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order is
hereby adopted.
18. It is further ordered that the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by
Sprint Nextel Corporation, on January
27, 2006 is dismissed to the extent
described herein.
19. It is further ordered that, as a
condition of its 800 MHz and 1.9 GHz
modified licenses, Sprint Corporation
shall comply with the benchmarks and
reporting requirements set forth herein.
20. It is further ordered that the 800
MHz Transition Administrator, on
January 15, 2008, shall submit a report
on the progress of band reconfiguration
to the extent described herein.
21. It is further ordered pursuant to
the authority of section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and sections
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Oct 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
1.925 of the Commission’s Rules, 47
CFR 1.925 that the Requests for Waiver
submitted by the Cities of Bethlehem
and Reading, Pennsylvania, and
Covington, Georgia, and the Counties of
Rockdale, Newton, Walton, and
Spalding, Georgia, in the abovecaptioned proceeding are granted to the
extent described herein.
22. This document does not contain
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified
‘‘information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–19641 Filed 10–4–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, change the regulations
governing migratory bird permitting. We
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
inside buildings in which the birds may
pose a threat to themselves, to public
health and safety, or to commercial
interests.
This rule is effective on
November 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this
rule is available for public inspection,
by appointment, at the Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia
22203–1610.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist,
Division of Migratory Bird Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703–
358–1825.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
public health and safety, or to
commercial interests, we will allow the
removal of any migratory bird, except a
threatened or endangered species, a bald
eagle, or a golden eagle, from the inside
of 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, in most cases, immediately
released to the wild. This regulation
does not allow removal of birds or nests
from the outside of buildings without a
permit. Removal of active nests from
inside buildings must be conducted by
a federally permitted migratory bird
rehabilitator.
This regulatory addition will facilitate
removal of birds from buildings, which
would otherwise require a migratory
bird permit. Our changes are detailed
below in the Regulation Promulgation
section of this document.
What Comments on the Proposed Rule
Did We Receive?
We received six sets of comments on
the proposed rule. The comments raised
relatively few issues, which we discuss
here.
Issue: One commenter believed that
the rule should include bird nests.
Response: Removal or destruction of
nests of most species of birds when the
nests are not in use is allowed. With this
regulations change, an active nest may
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 193 / Friday, October 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
be removed from inside a building with
the assistance of a permitted
rehabilitator. We clarified the relevant
language in this rule.
Issue: A commenter suggested that the
words ‘‘and for buildings undergoing
renovation or demolition’’ be added
after the words ‘‘commercial interests.’’
Response: Renovation and demolition
of buildings can be conducted outside
the nesting season, which is relatively
short for most species. A nest of any
species protected under one or more of
the Migratory Bird Conventions is
protected during the nesting season.
This provision is unchanged by this
rule.
Comment: ‘‘We suggest this proposal
should more specifically indicate what
time frame is meant by ‘promptly’ as
used in the sections on releasing birds
and on transferring injured and
orphaned birds to rehabilitators.’’
Response: We replaced the term
‘‘promptly’’ with ‘‘immediately,’’ and
qualified this requirement slightly by
requiring that an exhausted, ill, injured,
or orphaned bird be sent to a
rehabilitator.
Comment: ‘‘I fear that if you open up
this wildlife management category as is
proposed, there will be a resulting
unorthodox influx of raptors into
warehouse buildings across the United
States to clean-out invasive bird species.
The claim will be they came through the
doors when, actually, many will have
been intentionally introduced by
unscrupulous lay-people and store
managers having introduced the raptor
to its captivity and peril but unable to
get it out. I already see and hear about
many of these every year. However,
something does need to happen to
improve the raptor recovery service
response time to these corporations, but
something also needs to be done to
prevent the criminal activity of
capturing a free raptor in the
environment and placing it in harms
way into a ‘‘box store’’ environment to
clean-out invasive species. All too often,
these magnificent wild raptors perish
trying to get out or by being
mishandled.’’
Response: In most cases this action is
not legal, but we added language to the
regulation to address this concern.
Required Determinations
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined, in accordance with the
criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action.
a. This rule will not have an annual
economic effect of $100 million or more.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Oct 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
It will not 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 minimal costs associated with
this rule.
b. This rule does not create
inconsistencies with other agencies’
actions. It 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.
c. There are no entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs associated
with the regulation of birds in buildings.
d. This rule does not raise novel legal
or policy issues, and is in compliance
with other laws, policies, and
regulations.
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 will 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
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We have examined this rule’s
potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, and we certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, because the changes we are
making 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 very small.
This rule is not a major rule under
SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, so
a regulatory flexibility analysis of this
action is not required.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56927
a. This rule will not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
b. This rule will not cause a major
increase in costs or prices for
consumers; individual industries;
Federal, State, or local government
agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This rule will not have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased 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 will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. A
small government agency plan is not
required. Actions under the regulation
will not affect small government
activities in any significant way.
b. This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year. It is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the
rule will not have significant takings
implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required. This rule
does not contain a provision for taking
of private property.
Federalism
No significant economic impacts are
expected to result from allowing
individuals, businesses, or government
offices to remove migratory birds from
buildings. This rule will not interfere
with the States’ ability to manage
themselves or their funds, nor does it
have sufficient Federalism effects to
warrant preparation of a Federalism
assessment under E.O. 13132.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the
Office of the Solicitor has determined
that the rule will 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
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). There will 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
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
56928
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 193 / Friday, October 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget control number.
Compliance With Endangered Species
Act Requirements
National Environmental Policy Act
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
change to our regulations will not affect
listed species.
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 will 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 will 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
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 will 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.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Environmental Consequences of the
Action
The change we are making is to allow
people to remove birds protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from
buildings. We do not expect significant
environmental impacts of this action.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect the
action to have discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. This rule
will not alter the take of migratory birds
from the wild. It will not change
migratory bird populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species.
The regulation is for migratory birds
other than threatened or endangered
species. It will not affect threatened or
endangered species or habitats
important to them.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Oct 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
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.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
we amend part 21 of subchapter B,
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows.
I
PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
1. The authority citation for part 21
continues to read as follows:
I
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);
I b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(c) and adding a new heading to
paragraph (b);
I c. Adding a heading to newly
designated paragraph (c); and
I d. Adding a new paragraph (d), to read
as set forth below.
I
I
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
certain conditions.
(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) Unless you have a permit that
allows you to conduct abatement
activities with a raptor, you may not
release a raptor into a building to either
frighten or capture another bird.
(4) You must immediately release a
captured bird to the wild in habitat
suitable for the species, unless it is
exhausted, ill, injured, or orphaned.
(5) If a bird is exhausted or ill, or is
injured or orphaned during the removal,
the property owner is responsible for
immediately transferring it to a federally
permitted migratory bird rehabilitator.
(6) 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 immediately
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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 193 / Friday, October 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(7) 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).
(8) You must have 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).
(9) 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.
(10) If an active nest with eggs or
nestlings is present, you must seek the
assistance of a federally permitted
migratory bird rehabilitator in removing
the eggs or nestlings. The rehabilitator is
then responsible for handling them
properly.
(11) 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.
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E7–19712 Filed 10–4–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[I.D. 020607C]
RIN 0648–AV10
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Swordfish Quotas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the
regulations governing the North and
South Atlantic swordfish fisheries to
implement two recommendations by the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna
(ICCAT)(Recommendations 06–02 and
06–03). These recommendations
establish baseline quotas for North and
South Atlantic swordfish, respectively,
and set caps on underharvest carryover.
Additionally, recommendation 06–02
allows a contracting party (CPC) with a
total allowable catch (TAC) allocation to
make a transfer within a fishing year of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:23 Oct 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
up to 15 percent of its baseline
allocation to other CPCs with TAC
allocations, as long as the transfer is
conducted in a manner that is consistent
with domestic obligations and
conservation considerations. This final
rule will transfer 15 percent of the North
Atlantic swordfish baseline quota into
the reserve category which would allow
it to be transferred to other CPCs with
TAC allocations. In addition, this final
rule modifies the North and South
Atlantic swordfish quotas for the 2006
fishing year to account for updated
landings information from the 2004 and
2005 fishing years. Finally, this final
rule includes the option of an internet
website as an additional method for
complying with the Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Angling or
Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat
category(s 24 hour reporting
requirement. Currently, reporting is by
telephone only. This rule will remain in
effect until ICCAT provides new
recommendations for the U.S. swordfish
fisheries.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: For copies of the Final
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA),
please write to Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at
301–713–1917 (fax). Copies are also
available from the HMS website at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Ann Halter or Karyl BrewsterGeisz by phone: 301–713–2347 or by
fax: 301–713–1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is
managed under the 2006 Consolidated
HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
635 are issued under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq. and the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971
et seq. Regulations issued under the
authority of ATCA carry out the
recommendations of ICCAT.
Currently, baseline quotas for North
and South Atlantic swordfish are
2,937.6 metric tons (mt) dressed weight
(dw) for the North Atlantic and 90.2 mt
dw for the South Atlantic. Baseline
quotas for the United States are
established by implementing
recommendations from the International
Commission for the Conservation of
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56929
Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT. Each fishing
year, quotas are adjusted by carrying
over the entire under harvest or
deducting overharvest from the previous
fishing year. Thus, the entire under
harvest is added to the next year(s
baseline quota. Finally, no additional
quota has been added to the reserve
category since it was created in 2002
and it continues to decrease each year
because 18.8 mt dw is transferred to
Canada annually from the reserve.
On June 18, 2007 (72 FR 33436),
NMFS published a proposed rule that
examined alternatives for implementing
2006 ICCAT recommendations 06–02
and 06–03. Among the topics explored
in the alternatives were North and
South Atlantic swordfish quotas and
underharvest carryovers, as well as
alternatives exploring mechanisms for a
permissible 15 percent North Atlantic
baseline quota transfer to other CPCs
with TAC allocations. Information
regarding these alternatives was
provided in the preamble of the
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
Final Quotas, Underharvest Carryover
Caps, and Transfer Allocation for North
and South Atlantic Swordfish
The final 2007 and 2008 baseline
quotas for North and South Atlantic
swordfish are 2,937.6 mt dw and 75.2
mt dw, respectively. In addition, final
2007 and 2008 carryover caps will be 50
percent of the original baseline
allocation for the North Atlantic
(1,468.8 mt dw) and 100 percent of the
original baseline allocation for the
South Atlantic (75.2 mt dw). The 100
percent cap for the South Atlantic will
also apply to 2006 carryover. The final
mechanism for possible 15 percent
transfer to other CPCs will be placement
of 15 percent of the 2007 North Atlantic
baseline quota allocation (440.6 mt dw)
into the 2007 reserve category. The final
North and South Atlantic 2007 and 2008
swordfish quotas, carryover caps, and
transfer mechanism to the North
Atlantic reserve category are provided
in Table 1. These baselines and
carryovers will continue until ICCAT
issues new recommendations for the
United States. Both the North and South
Atlantic swordfish fisheries are open
unless closed per 50 CFR 635.28(c)(1).
E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM
05OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 193 (Friday, October 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56926-56929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19712]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, change the regulations
governing migratory bird permitting. We 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 inside
buildings in which the birds may pose a threat to themselves, to public
health and safety, or to commercial interests.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, at the Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive,
Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
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 public health and
safety, or to commercial interests, we will allow the removal of any
migratory bird, except a threatened or endangered species, a bald
eagle, or a golden eagle, from the inside of 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, in most cases,
immediately released to the wild. This regulation does not allow
removal of birds or nests from the outside of buildings without a
permit. Removal of active nests from inside buildings must be conducted
by a federally permitted migratory bird rehabilitator.
This regulatory addition will facilitate removal of birds from
buildings, which would otherwise require a migratory bird permit. Our
changes are detailed below in the Regulation Promulgation section of
this document.
What Comments on the Proposed Rule Did We Receive?
We received six sets of comments on the proposed rule. The comments
raised relatively few issues, which we discuss here.
Issue: One commenter believed that the rule should include bird
nests.
Response: Removal or destruction of nests of most species of birds
when the nests are not in use is allowed. With this regulations change,
an active nest may
[[Page 56927]]
be removed from inside a building with the assistance of a permitted
rehabilitator. We clarified the relevant language in this rule.
Issue: A commenter suggested that the words ``and for buildings
undergoing renovation or demolition'' be added after the words
``commercial interests.''
Response: Renovation and demolition of buildings can be conducted
outside the nesting season, which is relatively short for most species.
A nest of any species protected under one or more of the Migratory Bird
Conventions is protected during the nesting season. This provision is
unchanged by this rule.
Comment: ``We suggest this proposal should more specifically
indicate what time frame is meant by `promptly' as used in the sections
on releasing birds and on transferring injured and orphaned birds to
rehabilitators.''
Response: We replaced the term ``promptly'' with ``immediately,''
and qualified this requirement slightly by requiring that an exhausted,
ill, injured, or orphaned bird be sent to a rehabilitator.
Comment: ``I fear that if you open up this wildlife management
category as is proposed, there will be a resulting unorthodox influx of
raptors into warehouse buildings across the United States to clean-out
invasive bird species. The claim will be they came through the doors
when, actually, many will have been intentionally introduced by
unscrupulous lay-people and store managers having introduced the raptor
to its captivity and peril but unable to get it out. I already see and
hear about many of these every year. However, something does need to
happen to improve the raptor recovery service response time to these
corporations, but something also needs to be done to prevent the
criminal activity of capturing a free raptor in the environment and
placing it in harms way into a ``box store'' environment to clean-out
invasive species. All too often, these magnificent wild raptors perish
trying to get out or by being mishandled.''
Response: In most cases this action is not legal, but we added
language to the regulation to address this concern.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget has determined, in accordance
with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action.
a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more. It will not 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
minimal costs associated with this rule.
b. This rule does not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. It 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.
c. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
associated with the regulation of birds in buildings.
d. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues, and is in
compliance with other laws, policies, and regulations.
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 will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and we certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because the changes we are making 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
very small. This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C.
804(2)). It will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities, so a regulatory flexibility analysis of this action
is not required.
a. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government
agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
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 will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions
under the regulation will not affect small government activities in any
significant way.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year. It is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule will not have significant
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
Federalism
No significant economic impacts are expected to result from
allowing individuals, businesses, or government offices to remove
migratory birds from buildings. This rule will not interfere with the
States' ability to manage themselves or their funds, nor does it have
sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism
assessment under E.O. 13132.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the rule will 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). There will 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
[[Page 56928]]
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 will
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 will 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
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 will
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 Action
The change we are making is to allow people to remove birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from buildings. We do not
expect significant environmental impacts of this action.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect the action to have discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. This rule will not alter the take of
migratory birds from the wild. It will not change migratory bird
populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The regulation is for migratory
birds other than threatened or endangered species. It will 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 change to our
regulations will 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.
Regulation Promulgation
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 21 of subchapter
B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.12 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory paragraph and paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (c) and adding a new heading to paragraph (b);
0
c. Adding a heading to newly designated paragraph (c); and
0
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 certain conditions.
(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) Unless you have a permit that allows you to conduct abatement
activities with a raptor, you may not release a raptor into a building
to either frighten or capture another bird.
(4) You must immediately release a captured bird to the wild in
habitat suitable for the species, unless it is exhausted, ill, injured,
or orphaned.
(5) If a bird is exhausted or ill, or is injured or orphaned during
the removal, the property owner is responsible for immediately
transferring it to a federally permitted migratory bird rehabilitator.
(6) 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 immediately 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.
[[Page 56929]]
(7) 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).
(8) You must have 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).
(9) 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.
(10) If an active nest with eggs or nestlings is present, you must
seek the assistance of a federally permitted migratory bird
rehabilitator in removing the eggs or nestlings. The rehabilitator is
then responsible for handling them properly.
(11) 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.
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-19712 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P