Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15689 

using an automatic telephone dialing 

system or an artificial or prerecorded 

voice to, among other recipients, any 

wireless telephone number. 

Specifically, the Commission adopts the 

following conditions applicable to each 

delivery notification (voice call or text 

message) made utilizing the exemption 

the Commission grants: 

(1) A notification must be sent, if at 

all, only to the telephone number for the 

package recipient; 

(2) notifications must identify the 

name of the delivery company and 

include contact information for the 

delivery company; 

(3) notifications must not include any 

telemarketing, solicitation, or 

advertising content; 

(4) voice call and text message 

notifications must be concise, generally 

one minute or less in length for voice 

calls and one message of 160 characters 

or less in length for text messages; 

(5) delivery companies shall send 

only one notification (whether by voice 

call or text message) per package, except 

that one additional notification may be 

sent to a consumer for each of the 

following two attempts to obtain the 

recipient’s signature when the signatory 

was not available to sign for the package 

on the previous delivery attempt; 

(6) delivery companies relying on this 

exemption must offer parties the ability 

to opt out of receiving future delivery 

notification calls and messages and 

must honor the opt-out requests within 

a reasonable time from the date such 

request is made, not to exceed thirty 

days; and, 

(7) each notification must include 

information on how to opt out of future 

delivery notifications; voice call 

notifications that could be answered by 

a live person must include an 

automated, interactive voice- and/or key 

press-activated opt-out mechanism that 

enables the called person to make an 

opt-out request prior to terminating the 

call; voice call notifications that could 

be answered by an answering machine 

or voice mail service must include a 

toll-free number that the consumer can 

call to opt out of future package delivery 

notifications; text notifications must 

include the ability for the recipient to 

opt out by replying ‘‘STOP.’’ 

The Commission’s grant of the 

requested exemption, to the extent 

indicated herein, is limited to package 

delivery notifications to consumers’ 

wireless phones either by voice or text 

and only applies so long as those calls 

are not charged to the consumer 

recipient, including not being counted 

against the consumer’s plan limits on 

minutes or texts, and must comply with 

the conditions the Commission adopts. 

In addition to the limited context within 

which package delivery companies will 

be making autodialed or prerecorded 

package delivery notification calls to 

consumers’ wireless numbers, the 

conditions adopted herein to protect 

consumers’ privacy interests are critical 

to the Commission’s exercise of the 

statutory authority to grant an 

exemption. Taken as a whole, the 

Commission finds that these conditions 

simultaneously fulfill the statutory 

obligation to protect consumers’ privacy 

interest in avoiding unwanted calls 

while allowing package delivery 

companies a reasonable time in which 

to implement opt-out elections. The 

Commission clarifies that, as required 

by the statute, except in an emergency 

or with the prior express consent of the 

consumer, any party who sends an 

autodialed or prerecorded package 

delivery notification to a wireless 

number that is not in full conformance 

with the requirements the Commission 

adopts today may not take advantage of 

this exemption and risks violating the 

TCPA. 

Ordering Clause 

Pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 227 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 227, 

and §§ 1.2 and 64.1200 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2, 

64.1200, that the Petition for Expedited 

Declaratory Ruling filed by Cargo 

Airline Association on August 17, 2012 

is granted in part and is otherwise 

dismissed to the extent indicated herein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06709 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0100; 

FF09M29000–145–FXMB12320900000] 

RIN 1018–AX92 

Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of 

Regulations Concerning Certain 

Depredation Orders 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are removing two 

regulations that set forth certain 

depredation orders for migratory birds. 

There have been no requests for 

authorization of a depredation order 

under one regulation we are removing, 

and no reports of activities undertaken 

under the other in the last 10 years. 

Control of depredating birds may be 

undertaken under depredation permits 

in accordance with the regulations 

already set forth. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 24, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Allen, at 703–358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 4, 2013, we published 

a proposed rule (78 FR 65953) to remove 

50 CFR 21.42, 21.45, and 21.46. These 

regulations concern depredating 

migratory birds. 

Specifically, 50 CFR 21.42 governs 

control of depredating migratory game 

birds in the United States; under this 

section of the regulations, the Director 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

authorized to issue, by publication in 

the Federal Register, a depredation 

order to permit the taking of migratory 

game birds under certain conditions if 

the Director receives evidence clearly 

showing that the migratory game birds 

have accumulated in such numbers in a 

particular area as to cause or about to 

cause serious damage to agricultural, 

horticultural, and fish cultural interests. 

Under 50 CFR 21.45, landowners, 

sharecroppers, tenants, or their 

employees or agents actually engaged in 

the production of rice in Louisiana, 

may, without a permit and in 

accordance with certain conditions, take 

purple gallinules (Ionornis martinica) 

when found committing or about to 

commit serious depredations to growing 

rice crops on the premises owned or 

occupied by those persons. 

Under 50 CFR 21.46, landowners, 

sharecroppers, tenants, or their 

employees or agents actually engaged in 

the production of nut crops in 

Washington and Oregon may, without a 

permit and in accordance with certain 

conditions, take scrub jays (Aphelocoma 

coerulescens) and Steller’s jays 

(Cyanocitta stelleri) when found 

committing or about to commit serious 

depredations to nut crops on the 

premises owned or occupied by such 

persons. 

This Rule 

In response to our November 4, 2013, 

proposed rule (78 FR 65953), we 

received no comments on our proposal 

to remove 50 CFR 21.42 or 21.45, but we 

did receive comments about our 

proposal to remove 50 CFR 21.46. In 

this final rule, we are removing only 50 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
15690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR 21.42 and 21.45, as well as 

references to those two sections that 

appear in 50 CFR 21.41 and 21.53. 

Removal of these depredation orders 

does not affect any other depredation 

order in 50 CFR part 21. We will 

address our proposal to remove 50 CFR 

21.46 in a separate rule, in which we 

will respond to the comments we 

received concerning the proposal to 

remove that section of our regulations. 

The regulations at 50 CFR 21.42 and 

21.45 were put in place in 1974, to help 

commercial agricultural interests (39 FR 

1157, January 4, 1974). 50 CFR 21.45 

requires reporting and recordkeeping on 

activities taken in accordance with the 

regulations. We have received no 

applications for declaration of a 

depredation order under § 21.42 in the 

last 15 years, and there have been no 

reports of activities conducted under 

§ 21.45 in at least 10 years. 

Upon the effective date of this rule 

(see DATES, above), control of 

depredating birds may still be 

undertaken under depredation permits, 

in accordance with 50 CFR 21.41. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. OIRA has determined that this 

rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We developed this 

rule in a manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

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 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. There are no costs associated 

with this regulations change. The 

Federal Government will see a small 

benefit because it will no longer incur 

the annual cost of publishing the three 

sections of the regulations in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

We have examined this rule’s 

potential effects on small entities as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. This action will not have not have 

a significant economic impact on any 

small entity, so a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

This rule is not a major rule under the 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

a. This rule does 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, Tribal, 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. 

Therefore, we certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

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. 

b. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year. It is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Takings 

This rule does not contain a provision 

for taking of private property. In 

accordance with Executive Order 12630, 

a takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

Federalism 

This rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement under Executive Order 

13132. It will not interfere with the 

States’ abilities to manage themselves or 

their funds. We do not expect 

significant economic impacts to result 

from the removal of the depredation 

orders. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

There is no information collection 

requirement associated with this 

regulations change. 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. 

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 43 CFR 46.210. 

The regulations change will remove 

unused regulations, and is 

administrative in nature. The action is 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA consideration by 43 CFR 

46.210(i). 

Socioeconomic. The regulations 

change will have no socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Migratory bird populations. The 

regulations change will not affect native 

migratory bird populations. 

Endangered and threatened species. 

The regulation change will not affect 

endangered or threatened species or 

habitats important to them. 

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), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

determined that there are no potential 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

Tribes from the regulations change. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15691 

regulations change will not interfere 

with Tribes’ abilities to manage 

themselves or their funds or to regulate 

migratory bird activities on Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

This rule will affect only two 

depredation orders for migratory birds, 

and will not affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. This is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

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 

regulations change will not affect listed 

species. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons described in the 

preamble, we amend subchapter B of 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

■ 1. The authority for part 21 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703–712. 

■ 2. Amend § 21.41 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 21.41 Depredation permits. 

(a) Permit requirement. Except as 

provided in §§ 21.43, 21.44, and 21.46, 

a depredation permit is required before 

any person may take, possess, or 

transport migratory birds for 

depredation control purposes. No 

permit is required merely to scare or 

herd depredating migratory birds other 

than endangered or threatened species 

or bald or golden eagles. 

* * * * * 

§ 21.42 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 21.42. 

§ 21.45 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 21.45. 

§ 21.53 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 21.53 by removing the 

fourth sentence of paragraph (c)(2). 

Dated: February 2, 2015. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06639 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 140903744–5258–02] 

RIN 0648–BE46 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Amendment 16 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 16 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

(FMP), as prepared and submitted by 

the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery 

Management Council (Council). This 

final rule revises the annual catch limit 

(ACL) for royal red shrimp, removes the 

royal red shrimp quota, and revises the 

accountability measures (AMs) for royal 

red shrimp to remove an inconsistency 

in the regulations. The purpose of this 

rule is to prevent overfishing of the 

royal red shrimp resource while helping 

to achieve optimum yield and reconcile 

conflicting Federal regulations. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 24, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 

Amendment 16, which includes an 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act 

analysis, and a regulatory impact 

review, may be obtained from the 

Southeast Regional Office Web site at 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_

fisheries/gulf_fisheries/shrimp/2014/

am16/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, or email: Susan.Gerhart@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

shrimp fishery in the Gulf is managed 

under the FMP. The FMP was prepared 

by the Council and implemented 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

On March 11, 2014, NMFS published 

a notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement for Amendment 16 and 

requested public comment (79 FR 

13623). NMFS published a notice of 

availablility for Amendment 16 on 

December 24, 2014, (79 FR 77425) and 

published the proposed rule on January 

26, 2015, (80 FR 3937) and requested 

public comment. A summary of the 

actions implemented by Amendment 16 

and this final rule is provided below. 

On January 30, 2012, NMFS 

implemented regulations developed 

through the Generic ACL/AMs 

Amendment to multiple fishery 

management plans, including the 

Shrimp FMP (December 29, 2011, 76 FR 

82044). That amendment included 

actions to establish the commercial ACL 

and AM for royal red shrimp. However, 

the ‘‘no action’’ alternatives and 

discussions in the Generic ACL 

Amendment incorrectly stated that there 

were currently no catch limits or AMs 

for royal red shrimp, even though a 

quota and in-season quota closure were 

in the regulations. As a consequence, 

through the Generic ACL Amendment, 

both a royal red shrimp ACL and AM 

were added to the regulations, but the 

existing quota and in-season quota 

closure provision were not removed. 

Federal regulations currently include 

a royal red shrimp ACL of 334,000 lb 

(151,000 kg), tail weight, and a quota of 

392,000 lb (177.8 mt), tail weight. This 

final rule removes the royal red shrimp 

quota and updates the ACL to 337,000 

lb (152,861 kg), tail weight, which is 

equal to the acceptable biological catch 

as recommended by the Council’s 

Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

Federal regulations also include a 

royal red shrimp in-season closure if the 

quota is met or projected to be met, 

based on in-season monitoring (which 

functions as an AM), and include an 

AM that implements in-season 

monitoring and an ACL closure in the 

year following any ACL overage. The 

presence of two AMs in the regulations 

presents an inconsistency in the 

management of royal red shrimp. This 

final rule removes the in-season quota 

closure associated with the royal red 

shrimp quota and retains the AM 

associated with the ACL. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES