Economic Analysis for Proposed Regulations Governing the Take of Migratory Birds, 38354-38355 [2021-15368]
Download as PDF
38354
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Madonna Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–15418 Filed 7–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090;
FF09M22000–212–FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018–BD76
Economic Analysis for Proposed
Regulations Governing the Take of
Migratory Birds
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; document
availability.
AGENCY:
We announce the opportunity
to review and comment on two
economic analysis documents prepared
during development of the proposed
rule to revoke the January 7, 2021, rule
governing the prohibitions on incidental
take under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. This document announces the
availability of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis and a regulatory
impact analysis for public review.
DATES: Submit comments by August 19,
2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQMB-2018-0090/document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment.’’ Please ensure you have
located the correct document before
submitting your comments.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/3W,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jul 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome Ford, Assistant Director,
Migratory Birds, at 202–208–1050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 2021, the Service
published a final rule defining the scope
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) as it
applies to conduct resulting in the
injury or death of migratory birds
protected by the MBTA (86 FR 1134)
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘January 7
rule’’). The January 7 rule codified an
interpretation of the MBTA set forth in
a 2017 legal opinion of the Solicitor of
the Department of the Interior,
Solicitor’s Opinion M–37050, which
concluded that the MBTA does not
prohibit incidental take.
Following Council on Environmental
Quality regulations that implement the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Service
prepared a final environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the January 7 rule:
‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement;
Regulations Governing Take of
Migratory Birds,’’ available on https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090 (https://
www.regulations.gov/document/FWSHQ-MB-2018-0090-14242). The
alternatives analyzed in that EIS cover
the effects of interpreting the MBTA
both to include and exclude incidental
take. We issued a record of decision
based on the final EIS. The Service also
prepared a regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) to support the January 7 rule,
available on https://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090
(https://www.regulations.gov/document/
FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090-14241). That
RIA analyzed the economic impacts of
three alternatives: A No Action
Alternative—Retain the existing legal
interpretation under M–37050 that the
MBTA excludes incidental take;
Alternative A—Promulgate regulations
that define the scope of the MBTA to
exclude incidental take; and Alternative
B—Promulgate regulations that define
the scope of the MBTA to include
incidental take.
On May 7, 2021, the Service
published in the Federal Register (86
FR 24573) a proposed rule seeking
public comment on whether the Service
should revoke the January 7 rule, which
defined the scope of the MBTA as it
applies to conduct resulting in the
injury or death of migratory birds
protected by the MBTA. This proposed
rule is available on https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090 (https://
www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
HQ-MB-2018-0090-18943). For the May
7, 2021, proposed rule, we modified the
analysis in the RIA for the January 7
rule, given that the January 7 rule went
into effect on March 8, 2021. The
regulatory impact analysis presented for
the proposed rule revises the
alternatives to reflect the current
baseline with the January 7 rule in
effect. While the proposed rule does not
itself propose codification of a new
regulation that interprets the MBTA to
prohibit incidental take, the effects of
the removal of the January 7 rule are
substantially similar to those described
in Alternative B of the RIA for the
January 7 rule. Revoking the January 7
rule would have the effect of reverting
the government’s interpretation of the
MBTA to prohibit incidental take
consistent with longstanding agency
practice prior to publication of M–
37050, subject to the exercise of
enforcement discretion and the
applicable judicial precedent in a given
jurisdiction. Consistent with Alternative
B, the Service will consider further
steps to implement the MBTA
consistent with an interpretation that it
prohibits incidental take if it finalizes
the proposed revocation rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
agencies to evaluate the potential effects
of their proposed and final rules on
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 603 of the RFA requires
agencies to prepare and make available
for public comment an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the
impact of proposed rules on small
entities unless the agency can certify
under section 605(b) that the proposed
rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Section 603(b) of the Act specifies that
each IRFA must contain:
D A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
D A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
D A description—and, where feasible,
an estimate of the number—of small
entities to which the proposed rule will
apply;
D A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be
subject to the requirement and the type
of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
D An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
While the Service believes that
certification under section 605(b) of the
RFA is likely appropriate in regard to
the May 7, 2021, proposed rule and
consistent with our analysis of
economic impacts under the January 7
rule, we have developed an IRFA out of
an abundance of caution to ensure that
economic impacts on small entities are
fully accounted for in this rulemaking
process.
The Service is making available to the
public for review and comment both the
revised RIA and the IRFA for the May
7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 24573) to
revoke the January 7, 2021, rule (86 FR
1134). As noted above, the proposed
rule is also available in the same docket
for reference when reviewing the RIA
and IRFA. Comments on the RIA and
IRFA and any additional comments on
the proposed rule will be addressed in
the final rule.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed
in ADDRESSES. We will post your entire
comment— including your personal
identifying information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your
comment, you may request at the top of
your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. Comments and
materials we receive will be available
for public inspection on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Authority: This document is
published under the authority of the
MBTA and section 603 of the RFA.
Shannon A. Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2021–15368 Filed 7–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
ALASKA
Bristol Bay Borough
APA’s Diamond NN Cannery, 101 Cannery
Rd., South Naknek, SG100006826
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
related actions in the National Register
of Historic Places.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
electronically by August 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments are encouraged
to be submitted electronically to
National_Register_Submissions@
nps.gov with the subject line ‘‘Public
Comment on .’’ If you
have no access to email you may send
them via U.S. Postal Service and all
other carriers to the National Register of
Historic Places, National Park Service,
1849 C Street NW, MS 7228,
Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register
of Historic Places/National Historic
Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW,
MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
sherry_frear@nps.gov, 202–913–3763.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
properties listed in this notice are being
considered for listing or related actions
in the National Register of Historic
Places. Nominations for their
consideration were received by the
National Park Service before July 10,
2021. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36
CFR part 60, comments are being
accepted concerning the significance of
the nominated properties under the
National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Nominations submitted by State or
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
[NPS–WASO–NRNHL–DTS#–32306;
PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000]
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Gould Cabin, 105 Dunkel St., Fairbanks,
SG100006828
National Register of Historic Places;
Notification of Pending Nominations
and Related Actions
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Oinuyang, Address Restricted, Igiugig
vicinity, SG100006827
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service is
soliciting electronic comments on the
significance of properties nominated
before July 10, 2021, for listing or
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Jul 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
High Ridge, 9721 East Hilscher Hwy., Palmer,
SG100006829
Yukon-Koyukuk Borough
Alaska Road Commission Shelter CabinFritz’s, (Iditarod Trail MPS), North side of
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38355
Hunter Trail, approx. 34 mi. from Ophir,
Ophir vicinity, MP100006832
CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles County
Pasadena Avenue Historic District, Roughly
bounded by South Pasadena Ave.,
Arlington Dr., Avoca Ave., Columbia St.,
West Glenarm St., Hurlbut St., Madeline
Dr., West State St. and Wigmore Dr.,
Pasadena, SG100006821
Pasadena Avenue Historic District Roughly
bounded by South Pasadena Ave.,
Arlington Dr., Avoca Ave., Columbia St.,
West Glenarm St., Hurlbut St., Madeline
Dr., West State St. and Wigmore Dr., South
Pasadena, SG100006821
CONNECTICUT
Hartford County
Aetna Diner, 267 Farmington Ave., Hartford,
SG100006804
MARYLAND
Frederick County
Beatty-Cramer House, Address Restricted,
Frederick vicinity, SG100006825
NORTH CAROLINA
Brunswick County
John N. Smith Cemetery, 225 East Leonard
St., Southport, SG100006808
Davidson County
St. Stephen United Methodist Church, 102
East First St., Lexington, SG100006812
Halifax County
Enfield Historic District, Roughly bounded
by North Church, West Bryant, North
Railroad, Liberty, North McDaniel,
Whitaker, SW Railroad, Tucker and
McGwigen Sts., East and West Burnette
Aves., Enfield, SG100006809
Lee County
Downtown Sanford Historic District
(Boundary Increase and Decrease), Roughly
bounded by South Horner Blvd., Cole St.,
Maple Ave., South and North First Sts.,
Norfolk-Southern Railway tracks, Charlotte
Ave., McIver St., North Moore St., Gordon
St., Sanford, BC100006819
Wake County
Graves-Fields House (Oberlin, North Carolina
MPS), 814 Oberlin Rd., Raleigh,
MP100006810
Zebulon Historic District, Roughly bounded
by North Arendell and East Gannon Aves.,
North Gill, East Horton, West Judd, East
and West Sycamore, West Vance, North
Wakefield, and North Whitley Sts., Rotary
Dr., and the former Raleigh and Pamlico
Sound Railroad tracks, Zebulon,
SG100006811
OHIO
Wayne County
Schantz Organ Company, 626 South Walnut
St., Orrville, SG100006818
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38354-38355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090; FF09M22000-212-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-BD76
Economic Analysis for Proposed Regulations Governing the Take of
Migratory Birds
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; document availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We announce the opportunity to review and comment on two
economic analysis documents prepared during development of the proposed
rule to revoke the January 7, 2021, rule governing the prohibitions on
incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This document
announces the availability of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and a regulatory impact analysis for public review.
DATES: Submit comments by August 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090/document. You may submit
a comment by clicking on ``Comment.'' Please ensure you have located
the correct document before submitting your comments.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: JAO/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome Ford, Assistant Director,
Migratory Birds, at 202-208-1050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 2021, the Service published a final rule defining the
scope of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) as
it applies to conduct resulting in the injury or death of migratory
birds protected by the MBTA (86 FR 1134) (hereafter referred to as the
``January 7 rule''). The January 7 rule codified an interpretation of
the MBTA set forth in a 2017 legal opinion of the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior, Solicitor's Opinion M-37050, which
concluded that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take.
Following Council on Environmental Quality regulations that
implement the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Service prepared a final environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the January 7 rule: ``Final Environmental Impact Statement;
Regulations Governing Take of Migratory Birds,'' available on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090 (https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090-14242). The
alternatives analyzed in that EIS cover the effects of interpreting the
MBTA both to include and exclude incidental take. We issued a record of
decision based on the final EIS. The Service also prepared a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) to support the January 7 rule, available on
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090 (https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090-14241). That RIA
analyzed the economic impacts of three alternatives: A No Action
Alternative--Retain the existing legal interpretation under M-37050
that the MBTA excludes incidental take; Alternative A--Promulgate
regulations that define the scope of the MBTA to exclude incidental
take; and Alternative B--Promulgate regulations that define the scope
of the MBTA to include incidental take.
On May 7, 2021, the Service published in the Federal Register (86
FR 24573) a proposed rule seeking public comment on whether the Service
should revoke the January 7 rule, which defined the scope of the MBTA
as it applies to conduct resulting in the injury or death of migratory
birds protected by the MBTA. This proposed rule is available on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090 (https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090-18943). For the May 7,
2021, proposed rule, we modified the analysis in the RIA for the
January 7 rule, given that the January 7 rule went into effect on March
8, 2021. The regulatory impact analysis presented for the proposed rule
revises the alternatives to reflect the current baseline with the
January 7 rule in effect. While the proposed rule does not itself
propose codification of a new regulation that interprets the MBTA to
prohibit incidental take, the effects of the removal of the January 7
rule are substantially similar to those described in Alternative B of
the RIA for the January 7 rule. Revoking the January 7 rule would have
the effect of reverting the government's interpretation of the MBTA to
prohibit incidental take consistent with longstanding agency practice
prior to publication of M-37050, subject to the exercise of enforcement
discretion and the applicable judicial precedent in a given
jurisdiction. Consistent with Alternative B, the Service will consider
further steps to implement the MBTA consistent with an interpretation
that it prohibits incidental take if it finalizes the proposed
revocation rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the RFA requires agencies to
prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of proposed rules on
small entities unless the agency can certify under section 605(b) that
the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 603(b) of the
Act specifies that each IRFA must contain:
[ssquf] A description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
[ssquf] A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule;
[ssquf] A description--and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number--of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
[ssquf] A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
[ssquf] An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules
[[Page 38355]]
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
While the Service believes that certification under section 605(b)
of the RFA is likely appropriate in regard to the May 7, 2021, proposed
rule and consistent with our analysis of economic impacts under the
January 7 rule, we have developed an IRFA out of an abundance of
caution to ensure that economic impacts on small entities are fully
accounted for in this rulemaking process.
The Service is making available to the public for review and
comment both the revised RIA and the IRFA for the May 7, 2021, proposed
rule (86 FR 24573) to revoke the January 7, 2021, rule (86 FR 1134). As
noted above, the proposed rule is also available in the same docket for
reference when reviewing the RIA and IRFA. Comments on the RIA and IRFA
and any additional comments on the proposed rule will be addressed in
the final rule.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We will post your entire comment-- including your
personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you
provide personal identifying information in your comment, you may
request at the top of your document that we withhold this information
from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to do so. Comments and materials we receive will be available for
public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Authority: This document is published under the authority of the
MBTA and section 603 of the RFA.
Shannon A. Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2021-15368 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P