Migratory Bird Permits; Authorizing the Incidental Take of Migratory Birds
| Published date | 04 October 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 54667 |
| Record Number | 2021-21474 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
54667
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
We intend to convene a committee to
develop proposed regulations affecting
institutional and programmatic
eligibility, including the 90/10 rule as
described below. We will announce the
topics and schedule of committee
meetings in a subsequent Federal
Register notice.
Regulatory Issue
The Department intends to regulate
on what is commonly referred to as the
90/10 rule. Section 2013 of the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(ARP) amended HEA section 487(a)(24)
to require that a proprietary institution
derive at least 10 percent of its revenues
from sources that are not Federal
education assistance funds. Federal
education assistance funds are ‘‘Federal
funds that are disbursed or delivered to
or on behalf of a student to be used to
attend such institution.’’ Section
2013(c)(2) of the ARP provides that
regulations developed and published on
90/10 by the Department will not be
effective until on or after January 1,
2023.
For more information on how the
current 90/10 rule is implemented, see
34 CFR 668.28 and pages 91–94 of the
2020–2021 FSA Handbook at: https://
fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
2021-03/2021FSAHbkVol2Master.pdf.
After a complete review of the
comments presented at the public
hearings and in the written submissions,
we will publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing the
specific topics for which we intend to
establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee and a request for
nominations for individual negotiators
for the committee who represent the
communities of interest that would be
significantly affected by the proposed
regulations. We will also post this
document on the Department’s website
at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/
reg/hearulemaking/2021/index.html.
Public Hearings
We will hold virtual public hearings
for interested parties to comment on the
90/10 rule only, on October 26, 2021,
from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern
time, and on October 27, 2021, from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Eastern time.
In a Federal Register notice published
on May 26, 2021, we announced public
hearings held on June 21, 23, and 24,
2021. In that notice, we invited the
public to comment on other proposed
topics and also allowed the public to
suggest other topics on which we might
regulate.
Further information on the public
hearings is available at https://
www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2021/index.html.
Individuals who would like to
comment at one of the public hearings
must register by sending an email
message to negreghearing@ed.gov no
later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
business day prior to the public hearing
at which they want to speak. Please
include the name of the speaker and one
or more dates and times during which
the individual would be available to
speak. We will attempt to accommodate
each speaker’s preference for date and
time; however, if we are unable to do so,
we will make the determination based
upon the time and date we received the
message and allowing for a diversity of
constituencies to present. We will limit
each participant’s comments to three
minutes.
We will notify speakers of the time
slot reserved for them and provide
information on how to log in to the
hearing as a speaker. An individual may
make only one presentation at the
public hearings. If we receive more
registrations than we can accommodate,
we reserve the right to reject the
registration of an entity or individual
affiliated with an entity or individual
that is already scheduled to present
comments to ensure that a broad range
of entities and individuals are able to
present.
Individuals who want to observe the
public hearing, but who do not want to
present comments, must also register.
Attendees who are not presenting
comments will be muted for the
duration of each public hearing. We will
post attendee registration information
on our website at www2.ed.gov/policy/
highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/
index.html. We will also post transcripts
of the hearings on that site.
The Department will accept written
comments via the Federal eRulemaking
portal and by postal mail, commercial
delivery, or hand delivery through
November 3, 2021. (See the
ADDRESSES
section of this document for submission
information.)
Schedule for Negotiations
We anticipate that any committee(s)
established after the public hearings
would begin virtual negotiations no
earlier than January 2022. We expect
negotiations to occur during three
sessions of five days each with
approximately four weeks between
sessions. We may adjust the number of
days of each session and time between
sessions to adapt to the virtual
environment. We will publish the dates
and details about these meetings in a
subsequent notice in the Federal
Register and post information on our
website at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/
highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/
index.html.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or portable document format (PDF).
To use PDF, you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available for
free on the site. You may also access
documents of the Department published
in the Federal Register by using the
article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
through the advanced search feature at
this site, you can limit your search to
documents published by the
Department.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a.
Annmarie Weisman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Planning, and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2021–21505 Filed 10–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2021–0105;
FF09M22000–212–FXMB1232090000]
RIN 1018–BF71
Migratory Bird Permits; Authorizing
the Incidental Take of Migratory Birds
AGENCY
: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION
: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; notice of intent to prepare
a National Environmental Policy Act
document.
SUMMARY
: To better protect migratory
bird populations and provide more
certainty for the regulated public, the
Service seeks to address human-caused
migratory bird mortality by codifying
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
54668
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
our interpretation that the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits
incidental take of migratory birds and
developing regulations that authorize
incidental take under prescribed
conditions. This document advises the
public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service, we) intends to gather
information necessary to develop a
proposed rule to authorize the
incidental taking or killing of migratory
birds, including determining when, to
what extent, and by what means it is
consistent with the MBTA and
compatible with the terms of the four
migratory bird conventions. This
information will be used to develop
proposed regulations to authorize the
incidental take of migratory birds under
prescribed conditions and prepare a
draft environmental review pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended. We are furnishing
this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and notice of intent to
advise other agencies and the public of
our intentions, obtain suggestions and
information to include in the proposed
rulemaking and environmental review,
and announce public scoping webinars.
DATES
: Comment submission: You may
submit comments to help guide the
development of the proposed rule and
draft environmental review until
December 3, 2021.
Scoping meetings: We will hold six
scoping meetings in webinar format:
Three for federally recognized Native
American Tribes and three for the
general public. See Scoping Meetings
below under
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
for details.
ADDRESSES
: You may submit written
comments by one of the following
methods:
•Electronically at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2021–0105.
•By hard copy via U.S. mail: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–
MB–2021–0105; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg
Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
We will post all comments on http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. See
Public Availability of Comments below
under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for
further information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Jerome Ford, Assistant Director,
Migratory Birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, at 202–208–1050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) is the Federal agency delegated
with the primary responsibility for
managing migratory birds. Our authority
derives from the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA; 16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements
conventions with Canada, Mexico,
Japan, and the Russian Federation. The
MBTA protects certain migratory birds
from take, except as permitted by the
Service under the MBTA. We
implement the provisions of the MBTA
through regulations in parts 10, 13, 20,
21, and 22 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Regulations
pertaining to migratory bird permits are
set forth at 50 CFR part 21.
The Service is charged with ensuring
the conservation of migratory birds by
the MBTA, consistent with its
underlying conventions, and other
relevant statutes. A primary example is
the regulatory framework developed to
manage hunting of waterfowl species in
a manner that ensures their long-term
conservation. Early in the 20th century,
habitat loss and hunting pressure
resulted in declining populations for
many waterfowl species. Through
working closely with many partners, the
Service successfully conserves and
manages waterfowl populations and
hunting continues to contribute to the
U.S. economy.
The Service is concerned about the
current status of migratory birds and
publishes this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking as an initial step
in a process to achieve and manage the
long-term conservation of migratory
birds and provide regulatory certainty to
the regulated community. Over the last
50 years, the total population of North
American birds has declined by an
estimated 3 billion birds (Rosenberg et
al. 2019). Many of the 1,093 species of
birds protected under the MBTA (50
CFR 10.13) are experiencing population
declines due to increased threats across
the landscape. Both natural and human-
caused sources of bird mortality
cumulatively contribute to declining
bird populations. Millions of birds are
directly killed by human-caused
sources. These mortality impacts are
exacerbated by lost or degraded habitat,
ecological alterations resulting from
changing climate, and natural causes of
mortality. Many activities and projects
that incidentally take migratory birds
have voluntarily implemented
beneficial practices (also referred to as
best management practices,
conservation measures, best practices,
and mitigation measures) intended to
avoid and minimize the take of
migratory birds; however, many bird
populations remain in decline. The
Service is concerned that voluntary
implementation of beneficial practices
and prioritization of limited
enforcement resources may be
insufficient to conserve the species the
Service is charged with protecting. The
Service seeks to better protect migratory
bird populations through addressing
human-caused mortality with common-
sense regulations that are not unduly
burdensome.
The MBTA prohibits take, defined by
regulation (50 CFR 10.12) to mean
‘‘pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect.’’ Through this rulemaking
process, the Service will clarify that
incidental take is prohibited by the
MBTA and codify that interpretation.
On January 7, 2021, the Service
published a final rule (86 FR 1134;
hereafter ‘‘the January 7 rule’’) defining
the scope of the MBTA as it applies to
conduct resulting in the injury or death
of migratory birds protected by the
MBTA. The January 7 rule defined the
MBTA’s prohibitions on pursuing,
hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or
attempting to do the same, to apply only
to actions directed at migratory birds,
their nests, or their eggs. Elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register, we publish a
final rule that revokes the January 7
rule, thus returning the Service to
interpreting the MBTA as prohibiting
incidental take and applying
enforcement discretion, consistent with
judicial precedent and longstanding
agency practice prior to 2017. However,
our revocation of the January 7 rule does
not also include codification of our
current interpretation of the MBTA as it
applies to incidental take, it simply
revokes the prior rule codifying our
former interpretation and nothing more.
With this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Service initiates the
process to codify the interpretation that
the MBTA prohibits incidental take and
develop an approach to authorizing
incidental take of migratory birds.
Purpose of This Document
The Service is publishing this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
to gather information necessary to
codify our interpretation of the MBTA
as prohibiting incidental take and
propose a system of regulations to
authorize the incidental take of
migratory birds under prescribed
conditions. As part of the development
of these regulations, the Service is
preparing a draft environmental review
of this proposal pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
54669
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The goal of this rulemaking is to
provide regulatory clarification by
codifying our interpretation of the
MBTA as prohibiting incidental take,
instead of relying on enforcement
discretion, and to develop a common-
sense approach for regulating incidental
take to better protect migratory bird
populations. Over the years and in
recent rulemakings, the Service has
received public comment and feedback
from other Federal and State agencies
and the public on regulating incidental
take, the majority of which calls for the
creation of a durable solution that
effectively conserves migratory bird
populations while providing regulatory
clarification and certainty to the
regulated community.
In an effort to provide both
meaningful bird conservation and
regulatory clarity and certainty through
legal authorization to the regulated
communities with whom we work, we
are interested in comments regarding
whether and how the Service could
authorize incidental take and under
what conditions or circumstances. For
example, the Service is considering a
system of regulations for authorizing
incidental take. The Service is
considering authorizing incidental take
using three primary mechanisms: (1)
Exceptions to the MBTA’s prohibition
on incidental take; (2) general permits
for certain activity types; and (3)
specific or individual permits. The
Service is seeking public comment on
the criteria the Service would use to
apply these authorizations to various
activities.
The Service is considering using
regulatory authorizations to except
certain activities from requiring a
permit. For example, we are considering
authorizing by exception and not
requiring a permit for (a)
noncommercial activities, including
most activities by individuals (e.g.,
homeowner activities that take birds),
and (b) certain activities where activity-
specific beneficial practices or
technologies sufficiently avoid and
minimize incidental take.
A general permit could be authorized
through a registration system. An entity
would register, pay a required fee, and
agree to abide by general permit
conditions. These permit conditions
may be activity-specific (i.e., certain
industries would have their own
specific general permit with conditions
tailored to that industry) and require
certain beneficial practices. The general
permit would be effective upon
submission of the request and would
not require Service staff review prior to
being effective. General permit
conditions would not be customized to
the applicant. The general permit would
include reporting requirements.
However, the Service would not need to
specify a number of birds authorized,
specify species of birds authorized, or
require extensive monitoring
requirements in the permit conditions
for the registration system. For example,
the Service could require permittees to
report dead birds found during routine
maintenance and operation activities
rather than requiring an active
monitoring program. The environmental
review for general permits would be a
collective review of the general permit
system, not a separate review for each
individual permit authorization. This
means that we would review all of the
data entered by general permittees as
well as any monitoring data collected by
the Service to assess the effects of the
general permit program on migratory
bird populations, instead of assessing
those effects at the scale of an
individual project.
For projects that do not meet the
criteria for eligibility for a general
permit, the Service is considering
developing regulations describing
eligibility criteria and procedures for
applying for a specific permit to
authorize incidental take of migratory
birds similar to current specific permit
regulations (50 CFR part 21, subpart C),
where an application and required fee is
submitted to Service staff.
Subsequently, Service staff would
review the application and develop
customized permit conditions. If such
an approach is developed, the Service
would seek to minimize the need for
specific permits to the degree possible
to reduce the administrative burden on
the public, permittee, and Service. The
Service would intend to reserve the use
of specific permits to limited situations
where case-by-case evaluation and
customization is necessary and
appropriate.
To apply the three-tiered approach
being considered by the Service, we
must identify criteria for when a given
project qualifies as excepted from a
permit, meets general permit
requirements, or should apply for a
specific permit. The Service is seeking
input as to what those criteria should
be. The Service does not intend to use
the number of birds found dead on a
given project site as a criterion. Instead,
the Service seeks information on
appropriate criteria, such as
infrastructure design, beneficial
practices, geographic features, and
others. For example, there may be
certain geographic areas which are
known to have high volumes of
migratory birds that might be specified
for specific permits and might not
qualify for general permits due to the
high numbers of birds in those specific
areas. Similarly, there may be
infrastructure designs or technologies
that effectively reduce incidental take,
like the installation of flashing lights on
communications towers, that could be
an appropriate criterion for a permit
exception or general permit.
In addition, the Service is interested
in input regarding whether there are
unique authorization types for
government entities that the Service
should consider, or whether government
activities would be adequately covered
by the authorization types described
above. For example, the Service could
consider excepting Federal agencies
with a current, signed Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Service
for the conservation of migratory birds
from needing a permit for most
activities. The Service does not intend
to include military-readiness activities
in this rulemaking, as those activities
are already covered in 50 CFR 21.15.
The Service is also seeking input on
what beneficial practices might be
appropriate to require for different
authorization types. Many activities and
projects already voluntarily implement
beneficial practices. (See table 2 in our
final rule published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register.) Our intent is
to draw from these existing activity
beneficial practices to establish
regulatory requirements and permit
conditions.
The Service seeks any information
regarding the economic impacts (costs,
savings, or neutral effects) associated
with implementing activity-specific
beneficial practices. This information
will be used to help the Service to meet
its requirements to evaluate the
potential effects of the proposed and
final rules on small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
The Service is considering developing
individual, general-permit-authorization
regulations for the following activities
that have been identified as common
sources of bird mortality and/or have
well-developed, activity-specific
beneficial practices:
(a) Communication towers,
(b) Electric transmission and
distribution infrastructure,
(c) Onshore wind power generation
facilities,
(d) Offshore wind power generation
facilities,
(e) Solar power generation facilities,
(f) Methane and other gas burner
pipes,
(g) Oil, gas, and wastewater disposal
pits,
(h) Marine fishery bycatch,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
54670
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(i) Transportation infrastructure
construction and maintenance, and
(j) Government agency activities
(excluding military-readiness activities
already covered under 50 CFR 21.15).
For each of these activities, the Service
is seeking information and data
regarding the causes of migratory bird
death and injury at projects, activity-
specific beneficial practices, project-
specific beneficial practices, economic
costs and benefits of implementing
beneficial practices for retrofitting
existing infrastructure, and economic
costs and benefits of implementing
beneficial practices in new construction.
For activities not in the list above, the
Service is seeking public input on how
these activities should be treated (e.g.,
exception, general, or specific permit)
and what beneficial practices should be
required for these activities. The Service
intends to update regulations to
incorporate additional activity types
based on updated information regarding
effects to migratory birds. The Service is
considering authorizing these activities
through permit exceptions until
activity-specific regulations are
warranted and can be promulgated.
To improve the conservation of
migratory bird populations and support
efforts to ensure authorizing incidental
take is consistent with the MBTA and
compatible with the underlying
migratory bird conventions, the Service
is also considering implementing a
conservation fee structure to fund
programs to benefit birds. The Service
seeks public input on whether it should
consider a compensatory mitigation
approach, where mitigation is
developed and implemented specific to
a given project or activity. Alternatively,
the Service is considering a general
conservation fee structure, where fees go
to a specific, dedicated fund. The fund
could be used for two primary purposes.
First, the Service could use conservation
fee funds to research and monitor
human-caused mortality of birds to
inform the implementation of the
program. Research and monitoring
could be used to verify overall estimates
of incidental take by project/activity
type and the effectiveness of beneficial
practices and conservation activities.
Second, the Service could use
conservation fee funds to address
migratory bird population declines,
including habitat loss and degradation
and other sources of mortality. Because
many migratory birds are in decline and
in need of conservation action, a
conservation fee requirement could help
support efforts to ensure authorizing
incidental take under these regulations
is consistent with the MBTA and
compatible with the four bilateral
migratory bird conventions. The Service
is seeking input on how a conservation
fee could be structured and whether it
is more appropriate than project/
activity-specific compensatory
mitigation.
Finally, the Service is expecting the
need for regular review of permit
conditions and regulations. New
beneficial practices will be developed,
and new technology may solve some
situations as well as cause new
problems. The Service is seeking input
on the process for reviewing and
updating requirements: How frequently
should authorized activities be updated?
How should additional activities be
identified? How long should general
permits and specific permits be
authorized for? How should compliance
with authorization conditions be
documented and enforced?
Environmental Review
Public Scoping
A primary purpose of the NEPA
scoping process is to receive suggestions
and information on the scope of issues
and alternatives to consider when
drafting the necessary environmental
documents and to identify significant
issues and reasonable alternatives
related to the Service’s future proposed
action. To ensure that we identify a
range of issues and alternatives related
to the future proposal, we invite
comments and suggestions from all
interested parties. We will conduct a
review of the future proposed action
according to the requirements of NEPA
and its regulations, other relevant
Federal laws, regulations, policies, and
guidance, and our procedures for
compliance with applicable regulations.
Once the draft environmental
documents are completed, we will offer
further opportunities for public
comment.
Proposed Action and Possible
Alternatives
The Service is responsible for
maintaining and restoring migratory
bird populations for the American
public, pursuant to the MBTA and four
bilateral migratory bird conventions.
Many projects implement voluntary,
activity-based beneficial practices to
avoid and minimize the incidental take
of migratory birds. However, many
migratory bird populations are
significantly declining, and millions of
birds are killed each year from human-
caused sources of mortality contributing
to these declines.
To better protect migratory bird
populations and provide more certainty
for the regulated public, the Service
seeks to address human-caused
mortality by developing incidental take
regulations. The purpose of this action
is to determine when, to what extent,
and by what means it is compatible with
the MBTA and the terms of the four
migratory bird conventions to authorize
the incidental taking or killing of
protected migratory birds.
The Service is considering
alternatives that apply a regulatory
framework of authorizing incidental
take through permit exceptions, general
permits, and specific permits. The
Service will evaluate how different
criteria can be used to determine which
authorization mechanism is appropriate
for certain activities and what the
requirements of that authorization
should be (e.g., avoidance and
minimization measures, required
beneficial practices, etc.), including
whether compensatory mitigation or a
conservation fee or both should be
required for general permits or for
specific permits. The proposed
alternatives presented in the
environmental analysis will be
compared to the no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative will compare
estimated future conditions without
implementation of the alternatives to
the estimated future conditions with
those alternative actions in place.
Requested Information
Issues Related to Development of
Proposed Regulations
The Service is seeking data and
information on the following:
(a) Human-caused migratory bird
death and injury, in particular for the 10
activities listed above under the heading
‘‘PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT’’;
(b) Beneficial practices to avoid and
minimize migratory bird death and
injury;
(c) Activity-specific beneficial
practices that should be considered as
conditions of the authorization;
(d) Criteria (such as infrastructure
design, beneficial practices, geographic
features, etc.) to qualify as excepted
from a permit, for general permit
registration, or to apply for a specific
permit;
(e) Economic costs and benefits of
implementing beneficial practices that
require retrofitting existing
infrastructure;
(f) Economic costs and benefits of
implementing beneficial practices in
new construction instead of current
designs;
(g) Economic costs and benefits of
implementing beneficial practices that
do not affect infrastructure;
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
54671
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(h) Other economic information
useful for setting required compensatory
mitigation or a conservation fee;
(i) Economic information on the
benefits of migratory birds, such as
ecosystem services, recreation, and
other benefits; and
(j) Any potential effects on small
entities, such as small businesses, small
non-profit organizations or small
governmental entities with a population
under 50,000.
Issues Related to the Scope of the NEPA
Review
We seek comments or suggestions
from the public, the regulated
community, governmental agencies,
Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested parties.
Pursuant to NEPA, we will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information received.
We are seeking comments on the
identification of effects that might be
caused by regulating incidental take of
migratory birds. You may wish to
consider the following issues when
providing comments:
(a) Impacts on floodplains, wetlands,
wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically
sensitive areas;
(b) Impacts on park lands and cultural
or historic resources;
(c) Impacts on human health and
safety;
(d) Impacts on air, soil, and water;
(e) Impacts on prime agricultural
lands;
(f) Impacts to other species of wildlife,
including endangered or threatened
species;
(g) Disproportionately high and
adverse impacts on historically
marginalized and or disadvantaged
communities;
(h) Any other socioeconomic or other
potential effects; and
(i) Any potential conflicts with other
Federal, State, local, or Tribal
environmental laws or requirements.
Scoping Meetings
The issuance of this document
provides an opportunity for public
involvement in the scoping process to
guide the development of the proposed
rule and environmental review. The
public comment period begins with the
publication of this document in the
Federal Register and will continue
through the date set forth above in
DATES
. We will consider all comments
on the scope of the proposed
rulemaking and draft environmental
review that are received or postmarked
by that date. Comments received or
postmarked after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
The Service will present information
explaining this action in virtual scoping
meetings during the public comment
period. The purpose of scoping
meetings is to provide the public with
a general understanding of the
background for this proposed
rulemaking action, alternatives and
activities it would cover, alternative
proposals under consideration, and the
Service’s role and steps to be taken to
develop the draft environmental
documents for the proposed action.
Additionally, the public comment
period is to solicit suggestions and
information on the scope of issues and
alternatives for the Service to consider
when preparing the draft environmental
documents.
To help protect the public and limit
the spread of the COVID–19 virus, the
Service will hold virtual public scoping
meetings to accommodate best practices
and guidelines in place at the time this
document was prepared. The virtual
public scoping meetings will provide
the Service an opportunity to present
information on the scope of issues and
alternatives for which we are requesting
comment. No opportunity for oral
comments will be provided. Written
comments may be submitted by the
methods listed in
ADDRESSES
. We will
hold the following scoping meetings in
webinar format.
Meetings for federally recognized
Native American Tribes:
•On October 26, 2021, from 12 p.m.
to 1 p.m., Eastern Time.
•On October 28, 2021, from 3 p.m. to
5 p.m., Eastern Time.
•On November 2, 2021, from 1 p.m.
to 3 p.m., Eastern Time.
Meetings for the general public:
•On November 4, 2021, from 12 p.m.
to 1 p.m., Eastern Time.
•On November 8, 2021, from 3 p.m.
to 5 p.m., Eastern Time.
•On November 10, 2021, from 1 p.m.
to 3 p.m., Eastern Time.
Registration instructions and updated
session information can be accessed on
the Service Migratory Bird Treaty Act
web page at https://www.fws.gov/
regulations/mbta/, or may be obtained
from the person listed under
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
.
Scoping Webinar Accommodations
Please note that the Service will
ensure that the public scoping webinars
will be accessible to members of the
public with disabilities.
Public Comments
To promulgate a proposed rule and
prepare a draft environmental review
pursuant to NEPA, we will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information received. Please
note that submissions merely stating
support for or opposition to the
proposed action and alternatives under
consideration, without providing
supporting information, will be noted
but not considered by the Service in the
environmental analysis. Please consider
the following when preparing your
comments:
(a) Be as succinct as possible.
(b) Be specific. Comments supported
by logic, rationale, and citations are
more useful than opinions.
(c) State suggestions and
recommendations clearly with an
expectation of what you would like the
Service to do.
(d) If you propose an additional
alternative for consideration, please
provide supporting rationale and why
you believe it to be a reasonable
alternative that would meet the purpose
and need for our proposed action.
(e) If you provide alternate
interpretations of science, please
support your analysis with appropriate
citations.
The alternatives we develop will be
analyzed in our draft environmental
review pursuant to NEPA. We will give
separate notice of the availability of the
draft environmental review for public
comment when it is completed. We may
hold public hearings and informational
sessions so that interested and affected
people may comment and provide input
into the final decision.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that the 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. Comments and materials we
receive, as well as supporting
documentation we use in preparing the
environmental analysis, will be
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters (see
ADDRESSES
,
above).
Federally recognized Native American
Tribes can request government-to-
government consultation via letter
submitted at any time during this
rulemaking process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
54672
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 189 / Monday, October 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Literature Cited
Rosenberg, K.V., A.M. Dokter, P.J. Blancher,
J.R. Sauer, A.C. Smith, P.A. Smith, J.C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr,
P.P. Marra. Decline of the North
American avifauna. Science. 04 OCT
2019: 120–124.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Shannon Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2021–21474 Filed 9–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Oct 01, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM 04OCP1
