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 

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-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). 

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 http://

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 http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0090 (https://

www.regulations.gov/document/FWSHQ-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 20, 2021 / Notices 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 http:// 

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 http://

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NRNHL–DTS#–32306; 

PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] 

National Register of Historic Places; 

Notification of Pending Nominations 

and Related Actions 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is 

soliciting electronic comments on the 

significance of properties nominated 

before July 10, 2021, for listing or 

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 <property or proposed 

district name, (County) State>.’’ 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: 

ALASKA 

Bristol Bay Borough 

APA’s Diamond NN Cannery, 101 Cannery 

Rd., South Naknek, SG100006826 

Fairbanks North Star Borough 

Gould Cabin, 105 Dunkel St., Fairbanks, 

SG100006828 

Lake and Peninsula Borough 

Oinuyang, Address Restricted, Igiugig 

vicinity, SG100006827 

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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES