15394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 373.201 Receipts and bills of lading for 

freight forwarders. 

Each freight forwarder must issue the 

shipper a receipt or through bill of 

lading, covering transportation from 

origin to ultimate destination, on each 

shipment for which it arranges 

transportation in interstate commerce. 

Where a motor carrier receives freight at 

the origin and issues a receipt therefor 

on its form with a notation showing the 

freight forwarder’s name, then the 

freight forwarder, upon receiving the 

shipment at the ‘‘on line’’ or 

consolidating station, must issue a 

receipt or through bill of lading on its 

form as of the date the carrier receives 

the shipment. 

Issued on: March 30, 2009. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–7639 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[FWS–R9–MB–2008–0109; 91200–1231– 

9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AW11 

Migratory Bird Permits; Revision of 

Expiration Dates for Double-Crested 

Cormorant Depredation Orders 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; availability of final 

environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, extend the expiration 

dates for two existing depredation 

orders for double-crested cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) for 5 years so 

that we can continue to authorize take 

of double-crested cormorants without a 

permit under the terms and conditions 

of the depredation orders. This action 

will continue to allow take of 

depredating double-crested cormorants 

to protect aquaculture, fish hatcheries, 

fish resources, other birds, vegetation, 

and habitats. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

April 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Doyle, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 703–358–1799. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) is the Federal agency delegated 

the primary responsibility for managing 

migratory birds. This 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). 

The MBTA authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior, subject to the provisions of, 

and in order to carry out the purposes 

of, the applicable conventions, to 

determine when, if at all, and by what 

means it is compatible with the terms of 

the conventions to allow the killing of 

migratory birds. 

The double-crested cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus), a long-lived, 

colonial-nesting waterbird native to 

North America, is a migratory bird that 

is federally protected under the 1972 

amendment to the Convention for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds and Game 

Mammals, February 7, 1936, United 

States-Mexico, as amended, 50 Stat. 

1311, T.S. No. 912 and is included on 

the list of species protected by the 

MBTA at 50 CFR 10.13. Therefore, take 

of double-crested cormorants is strictly 

prohibited except as authorized by 

regulations implementing the MBTA. 

Increasing populations of the doublecrested cormorant have caused 

biological and socioeconomic resource 

conflicts. The species’ diet primarily 

consists of fish, and double-crested 

cormorant populations can decrease fish 

populations in open waters and in 

aquaculture facilities. In addition, their 

guano can kill trees, shrubs, and other 

vegetation. In November 2001, the 

Service completed a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

on double-crested cormorant 

management. The DEIS examined six 

management alternatives for addressing 

conflicts with double-crested 

cormorants: (A) No Action, (B) 

Nonlethal Control, (C) Increased Local 

Damage Control, (D) Public Resource 

Depredation Order, (E) Regional 

Population Reduction, and (F) 

Regulated Hunting. 

On March 17, 2003, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(68 FR 12653) to implement the DEIS 

proposed action; Alternative D, Public 

Resource Depredation Order. A 

depredation order is a regulation that 

allows the take of specific species of 

migratory birds, at specific locations 

and for specific purposes, without a 

depredation permit. The proposed rule 

proposed revising the existing 

aquaculture depredation order to allow 

winter roost control; establishing a new 

depredation order to protect public 

resources from cormorant damages; and 

revising the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Director’s Order 27 to allow lethal take 

of double-crested cormorants at public 

fish hatcheries. 

On August 11, 2003, we published a 

notice of availability for a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

(68 FR 47603). In the FEIS, we assessed 

the impacts of the proposed depredation 

orders and determined that they would 

not significantly affect the status of the 

species. The selected action in the FEIS 

was Alternative D, Public Resource 

Depredation Order. This alternative was 

intended to enhance the ability of 

resource agencies to deal with 

immediate, localized damages caused by 

depredating double-crested cormorants 

by giving these agencies more 

management flexibility. The FEIS is 

available by contacting us at the address 

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Finally, on October 10, 2003, we 

published a final rule (68 FR 58022) that 

set forth regulations for implementing 

the FEIS preferred alternative: 

Alternative D (establishment of a public 

resource depredation order and revision 

of the aquaculture depredation order). 

These depredation orders reside in 

part 21 of title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), which covers 

migratory bird permits. Subpart D of 

part 21 deals specifically with the 

control of depredating birds and 

currently includes eight depredation 

orders. The depredation orders at 50 

CFR 21.47 (‘‘Depredation order for 

double-crested cormorants at 

aquaculture facilities’’) and 21.48 

(‘‘Depredation order for double-crested 

cormorants to protect public resources’’) 

allow for take of the species under the 

provisions of our 2003 EIS. When we 

issued the final rule in 2003 we 

recognized the need for more 

information about double-crested 

cormorants and their impacts on 

resources across a variety of ecological 

settings, so we established an expiration 

date for the depredation orders of April 

30, 2009, and included requirements for 

annual reporting to the Service of 

actions taken under the orders. 

The data we have gathered since the 

issuance of the final rule in 2003, taken 

in concert with data from the 2003 EIS 

suggest that the orders have not had any 

significant negative effect on doublecrested cormorant populations; data 

suggest that cormorant populations are 

stable or increasing with the orders in 

effect. Extending the orders will not, in 

the judgment of Service biologists, pose 

a significant, detrimental effect on the 

long-term viability of double-crested 

cormorant populations and will serve to 

mitigate the damage that these 

populations can cause to certain 

resources. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15395 

Accordingly, we published a 

proposed rule December 8, 2008 (73 FR 

74445), to extend the depredation orders 

for double-crested cormorants at 50 CFR 

21.47 and 21.48 for five more years. We 

believe it is prudent once again to 

establish an expiration date to ensure 

appropriate consideration of 

accumulated information. We proposed 

to extend these depredation orders so 

that we can continue to authorize take 

of double-crested cormorants without a 

permit under the terms and conditions 

of the depredation orders and gather 

data on the effects of double-crested 

cormorant control actions. If we do not 

extend these depredation orders, any 

action to control depredating doublecrested cormorants will require a 

permit. We prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (DEA) to 

analyze the environmental impacts 

associated with our proposed extensions 

and invited the public to comment on 

the DEA and our proposed extension. 

Effective Date 

In accordance with paragraph (d)(3) 

and (d)(1) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), we find 

good cause to make this rule effective 

less than 30 days after publication. This 

substantive rule grants an exemption in 

that, if we do not extend these 

depredation orders, any action to 

control depredating double-crested 

cormorants will require a permit. As 

stated earlier in the preamble, we have 

no data to suggest that the depredation 

orders have had any significant negative 

effect on double-crested cormorant 

populations, and extending the orders 

will serve the public good by mitigating 

the damage that these populations can 

cause to certain resources. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

We received 18 comments on the 

proposed rule, including one from the 

Mississippi Flyway, four from State 

agencies, one from a Tribe, and two 

from interest groups. Major issues raised 

by commenters were the following: 

Issue. The Draft Environmental 

Assessment (DEA) is insufficient. 

‘‘The Draft Environmental Assessment 

(DEA) on which it [the proposed rule] 

is based is an inadequate document. Our 

three organizations have long been 

concerned that the cormorant 

depredation orders have not been 

sufficiently based on science. We are 

writing to emphasize the importance of 

completing a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

before reauthorizing these depredation 

orders.’’ 

‘‘USFWS needs to examine the full 

scope of the conflicts it seeks to evaluate 

and address. Set against the background 

of water pollution, dredging, non-native 

invasive species, unsustainable 

commercial take, development, erosion, 

loss of wetlands, climate change, and 

other factors, the cormorant/recreational 

fishing/public resource conflict is 

extremely complex. The DEA fails to 

demonstrate that killing cormorants and 

destroying their eggs and nests will 

provide relief to resources impacted in 

systematic and myriad ways. USFWS 

also needs to update any population 

dynamics models that are to be used to 

justify the take of cormorants and to 

share those models with concerned 

citizens for their comment.’’ 

‘‘It is especially disappointing that the 

DEA does not address the issues raised 

in the ‘Review of the Double-crested 

Cormorant Management Plan, 2003: 

Final Report of the American 

Ornithologists’ Union Conservation 

Committee’s Panel.’ Their conclusions 

and recommendations are still relevant 

today: 1. Public perceptions and public 

attitudes related to the natural history of 

cormorants need to be addressed. 2. 

Serious attention must be given to 

finding innovative and economically 

appropriate methods for excluding 

piscivorous birds from fixed site 

facilities, such as aquaculture ponds 

and hatcheries, or reducing the 

attractiveness of such sites. 3. Further 

study is needed to understand better the 

causes and possible mitigation of 

declining yields in sport-fishery. 4. 

Management planning would benefit 

from new data collection on fish take by 

cormorants in a variety of regions, 

including species and size/age classes, 

and the relationship between local take 

and fish densities, and dynamics at 

larger (fish population) scales. All these 

should be fully addressed in an SEIS.’’ 

‘‘I believe that a 5 year extension is 

unwarranted and should be shortened to 

the minimum time required to: (1) 

Analyze the extant data in depth, (2) 

publish that analysis in the open 

scientific literature where it can be 

reviewed by the broad community of 

wildlife and fishery population 

biologists, and (3) develop a real 

adaptive management plan that can be 

discussed by stakeholder groups, 

including those interested in the ethical 

issues arising from these proposed 

actions, not just those with economic or 

fish harvest objectives. I suggest a time 

frame of extending these orders on the 

order of 2 years to force the Federal 

management agencies (particularly the 

Fish and Wildlife Service * * *) to take 

these issues seriously and provide 

leadership on these issues.’’ 

‘‘The DEA fails to present critical 

information about the impact of the past 

five years of cormorant management.’’ 

Response. Data collected in support of 

the 2003 EIS and since the completion 

of the EIS continue to suggest that the 

affected DCCO populations are stable or 

increasing. For example, a Great Lakeswide census was conducted in 2005 and 

2007 by Federal, State, tribal, and 

provincial agencies. The total take from 

2004 through 2007 under the Public 

Resource Depredation Order published 

in October 2003 in Great Lake States 

was 30,353 birds, which amounts to an 

average annual take of 7,589 or 2.2% of 

the total Great Lakes population. 

Analysis of Double-crested Cormorant 

banding data for birds banded in the 

Great Lakes from 1979–2006 indicates 

that the depredation orders have likely 

had a negative effect on annual survival 

of ‘‘hatch-year’’ age-class cormorants in 

the Great Lakes. The effect of the orders 

on survival after that year was unclear. 

We also used annual counts of nests 

from the Lake Erie and Ontario from 

1979–2007; annual harvests of 

cormorants from each lake in the Great 

Lakes from 2003–2007; the number of 

eggs oiled in each lake from 2005 to 

2007; and the number of nesting 

individuals in each lake in 2005 and 

2007 to model population dynamics. 

Our model estimates that, if harvest or 

cormorants and egg oiling remain at the 

current rates, the population would 

decline by approximately 20% by 2014 

which is approximately three times the 

size of the population in the early 

1990s. 

We will obtain additional data on the 

population trend after the censuses to be 

conducted this year and in the future. 

The depredation orders require agencies 

taking action under them to provide to 

us report detailing activities conducted 

under the orders, including, by date and 

location, a summary of the number of 

double-crested cormorants killed and/or 

number of nests in which eggs were 

oiled. In addition, we have conducted 

Service-sponsored technical workshops 

have been conducted annually since 

2005. Data on the impacts of control on 

other species of birds that nest with 

double-crested cormorants have been 

collected by Federal, State, and 

Canadian wildlife officials. 

We recognize that it probably will be 

necessary to update the EIS at some 

time in the future. The data available to 

us suggest that double-crested 

cormorant populations have not been 

harmed by the orders in effect. We have 

complied with our goals stated in the 

2003 EIS by making every effort to 

capture data from improved doublecrested cormorant population 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
15396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring that will allow us to assess 

population changes subsequent to 

implementation of the depredation 

orders. The data that are available are 

summarized in the Environmental 

Assessment. 

Issue. ‘‘The DEA fails to evaluate any 

non-lethal alternatives. As they may 

prove to be more effective including 

cost effective, this is a serious 

omission.’’ 

Response. An Environmental 

Assessment must consider a no-action 

alternative, which we did. The other 

alternatives considered were germane to 

the issue. We did not intend to expand 

double-crested cormorant management 

alternatives or to supplement the EIS at 

this time. 

Issue. ‘‘The very concept of granting 

states, tribes, and aquaculturists license 

to take cormorants without permit is a 

novel policy issue in that it sets a 

precedent for similar actions regarding 

other species of migratory fish-eating 

birds like pelicans, herons, and egrets. 

Many of those species were severely 

threatened by similarly large scale 

killing programs a century ago. 

Protection of those species in particular 

was a major impetus for developing the 

Migratory Bird Treaty under which FWS 

now operates. Is it now FWS policy that 

conserving migratory bird populations 

means nothing more than that those 

populations do not reach dangerously 

low, perhaps irreversibly low, levels so 

that they require action under the 

Endangered Species Act?’’ 

Response. These depredation orders 

do not present a novel policy issue. We 

have had depredation orders for other 

species in place, some for many years. 

Depredation orders are a tool to manage 

migratory bird populations. Provided 

that we can ensure that the orders do 

not substantially harm the doublecrested cormorant population, they are 

in keeping with our mandate to protect 

bird populations. The data do not 

indicate that the orders will 

substantially harm cormorant 

populations, nor cause them to reach 

dangerously low population levels. To 

the contrary, relevant data indicates that 

the cormorant population is stable or 

increasing increased since we 

authorized the depredation orders in 

2003. 

Issue. ‘‘We hope the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would not use the 5 

years as a waiting period, but instead 

starts the SEIS during this time [the 

proposed 5 year extension] so that the 

evaluation process is nearly completed 

by 2014.’’ 

Response. We believe our experience 

under the current depredation orders 

and the data we have gathered since 

they went into effect support a five year 

extension. We expect to undertake a 

supplemental EIS if new data and 

population reports warrant it, but at this 

time, we cannot set a particular date to 

start that effort. 

Issue. Two commenters suggested that 

the depredation order should not have 

an expiration date. 

‘‘Regulations such as the doublecrested cormorant depredation orders 

should not have expiration dates. 

Revising the regulations and doing 

additional NEPA analyses when the 

regulations expire add additional 

expenses for the agency, and could 

interfere with other needed work. With 

the limited funding under which the 

Fish and Wildlife Service operates, the 

agency should not set arbitrary 

expiration dates for its regulations.’’ 

Response. The five year limitation 

allows us to undertake a reexamination 

of the rule after a reasonable period of 

time. We will continue to review 

available information on cormorant 

populations, fish populations, habitat 

changes, possible cormorant exclusion 

measures, and other relevant factors. We 

believe it is prudent to establish an 

expiration date to ensure appropriate 

consideration of accumulated 

information at that time. 

Issue. Government-to-government 

consultation. 

‘‘* * * the USFWS states that ‘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 ability of Tribes to 

manage themselves or their funds or to 

regulate migratory bird activities on 

Tribal lands.’ We believe that this 

statement is not completely accurate 

because the situation with cormorants 

nesting on Tribal lands on Leech Lake 

has raised many additional issues for us 

and our relationships with the general 

public, especially the resort community. 

It has also caused us to have to divert 

funding and other resources in an effort 

to address the issue to the satisfaction 

of the public. We therefore think that 

this section needs revised, because our 

tribe, and potentially others, are 

currently and are likely in the future to 

experience the effects of this federal 

action.’’ (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe) 

Response. We recognize that the 

government needs to consult with 

Tribes on natural resource management 

issues that may affect them. However, 

we proposed only to extend a 

depredation order that allows control of 

problematic double-crested cormorant 

populations. Doing so would allow the 

Tribe to continue control actions; in this 

case the proposed action was simply to 

extend the depredation orders; no 

substantive regulations change was 

contemplated. 

The Public Resources Depredation 

Order ensures each Tribe’s ability to 

make decisions about control actions for 

double-crested cormorants on Tribal 

land. We understand the additional 

burdens that these decisions place on 

Tribes, and therefore our Regional 

Offices will continue to consult with 

Tribes during implementation of this 

public resources depredation order 

consistent with our Government-toGovernment relationship. 

Comment. ‘‘The original PRDO 

[Public Resource Depredation Order, 50 

CFR 21.48], implemented in 2003, has 

provided NYSDEC with very acceptable 

latitude in the management of 

cormorants relative to identified public 

resource concerns. We applaud the 

Service for taking the necessary steps to 

enact this rule. We also strongly support 

the continuation of the authorities 

provided in the PRDO. As an aside, we 

have found the Service’s oversight of the 

PRDO to be simple, clearly defined, and 

without undue burden. We believe the 

PRDO has allowed NYSDEC to address 

our resource needs while ensuring 

viable cormorant populations on the 

landscape.’’ (New York State 

Department Environmental 

Conservation) 

Comment. ‘‘The Illinois Department 

of Natural Resources strongly supports 

Alternative B: Five-year Extension. This 

alternative * * * is in our opinion, the 

best recourse for the near future in 

Illinois.’’ 

‘‘A five-year extension of the 

depredation orders would allow us to 

pursue our goals of providing for a 

healthy sport fish population in the 

State of Illinois, and to assure that there 

are no detrimental effects on the 

viability of double-crested cormorant 

populations.’’ 

Comment. ‘‘The Department supports 

Alternative B * * *. Continued 

mechanisms to facilitate take are needed 

to ensure that fish, wildlife, and 

vegetation resources can be effectively 

managed and protected. A limited term 

extension to the Public Resource 

Depredation Order provides the states 

with the ability to manage cormorants 

while also working with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to develop a long term, 

regional management framework.’’ 

(State agency) 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15397 

not significant under E.O. (E.O.) 12866. 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a 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 have determined that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rule 

would allow small entities to continue 

actions they have been able to take 

under the regulations—actions 

specifically designed to improve the 

economic viability of those entities— 

and, therefore, will not significantly 

affect them economically. Because of 

the structure of wildlife damage 

management, the economic impacts of 

our action will fall primarily on State 

governments and the Wildlife Services 

Division of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. These do not qualify 

as ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions’’ 

under the Act’s definition. Effects on 

other small entities, such as aquaculture 

producers, will be positive because such 

facilities may continue to control 

depredating cormorants without having 

to obtain a permit from the Service, but 

are not predicted to be significant. We 

certify that because this rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

This rule is not a major rule under the 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). 

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, 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. 

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 will not be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. This rule 

does not contain a provision for taking 

of private property. In fact, this action 

will help alleviate private and public 

property damage and allow the exercise 

of otherwise unavailable privileges. 

Federalism 

Due to the migratory nature of certain 

species of birds, the Federal 

Government has been given statutory 

responsibility over these species by the 

MBTA. While legally this responsibility 

rests solely with the Federal 

Government, in the best interest of the 

migratory bird resource, we work 

cooperatively with States and other 

relevant agencies to develop and 

implement the various migratory bird 

management plans and strategies. This 

action does not have a substantial direct 

effect on fiscal capacity, change the 

roles or responsibilities of Federal or 

State governments, or intrude on State 

policy or administration. It will allow, 

but will not require, States to develop 

and implement their own doublecrested cormorant management 

programs. Therefore, in accordance with 

Executive Order 13132, this action does 

not have significant federalism effects 

and does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 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 E.O. 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these proposed 

regulations under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

We may not collect or sponsor, and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget control 

number. The Office of Management and 

Budget approved the information 

collection requirements for this part, 

and assigned OMB Control Number 

1018–0121, which expires December 31, 

2009. There are no new information 

collection requirements associated with 

this regulations change. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have completed a Final 

Environmental Assessment (FEA) on 

this proposed regulations change. The 

FEA is a part of the administrative 

record for this rule. In accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and Part 

516 of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior Manual (516 DM), extension of 

the expiration dates of the depredation 

orders will not have a significant effect 

on the quality of the human 

environment, nor would it involve 

unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources; 

therefore, preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is not required. 

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 

significant effects. This rule will not 

interfere with the ability of Tribes to 

manage themselves or their funds or to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
15398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

regulate migratory bird activities on 

Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

rule change will not be a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor 

would it significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. This 

action will not be 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)). 

We consulted on threatened and 

endangered species when we completed 

the 2003 EIS, and precautions to protect 

wood storks (Mycteria americana), bald 

eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), 

and least terns (Sternula antillarum) are 

in place in the depredation orders. We 

have concluded that the regulation 

change will not affect listed species. 

Literature Cited 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Double-crested Cormorant Management. 

Available at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/issues/cormorant/ 

finaleis/CormorantFEIS.pdf. 

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 hereby amend part 21 of subchapter 

B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95–616, 

92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public Law 

106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 

U.S.C. 703. 

§ 21.47 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 21.47(f) by removing the 

phrase ‘‘April 30, 2009’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘June 30, 2014.’’ 

§ 21.48 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 21.48(f) by removing the 

phrase ‘‘April 30, 2009’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘June 30, 2014.’’ 

Dated: March 30, 2009. 

Will Shafroth, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7650 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES