. State the administrative agency which controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interest you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (1) a Word doc with the questions and your answers and (2) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points)
The administrative agency that controls this regulation is the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is under the Department of the Interior.
This proposed regulation interests me because it affects wildlife that have done nothing but existed for many years and humans have infringed on their land. I have issues with companies who think that they can go in, do what this wish and not have to be held accountable for what they have done or for what they might do.
2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points)
The proposed regulation would authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of polar bears, and walruses in the Beaufort Sea and coast line of north Alaska while looking for and drilling of gas and oil.
3. Write the public comment which you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline has already passed, write the comment you would have submitted. Explain briefly what you wish to accomplish with your comment. (10 points)
My comment is that if these companies wish to explore and/or drill for oil and gas in this region of the world, then they have an obligation to respect the land, the sea and the animals who have lived in this area, untouched for many, many years. The Polar Bear is listed on the Endangered Species list and thus, they are a protected species. The laws are already in place that protects these creatures from useless slaughter. If the oil and gas companies wish to explore and drill for oil in places where these mammals live, then they must also have respect for what was there before them. There are other ways in which you can scare the bears and walrus’s off, instead of killing them. They could use flare guns, bean bag bullets and other devices that would scare them away and not cause harm to them. I am against this regulation and I do think that since the Fish and Wildlife Service was created to protect these living beings, then that is what they should do, protect them , not kill them.
4. Provide the "deadline" by which the public comment must be made. (If the date has already passed, please provide when the deadline was). (5 points)
All comments must be received by April 11, 2011.
5. a. Once you have submitted your comment, what will you be legally entitled to do later in the promulgation process (if you should choose to do so)? (See the textbook's discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act.)
You would have the right to go to the public meeting that is being held on the proposed regulation. If the regulation is modified in anyway, you would then have the right to make comment on the modified regulation. If the regulation is passed, you would then have the right to challenge it in the court of law.

b. If the proposal passes, identify and explain the five legal theories you could use in an attempt to have the regulation declared invalid and overturned in court.
1. The first ground in which a regulation can be declared invalid and overturned in court would be a challenge as to whether or not the regulation is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or in violation of some other law.
In May 2008, the Department of Interior, the department that is proposing this regulation, placed the polar bear on the Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq#q2). So, if they are an endangered species, we have an obligation to protect them and help them grow in numbers. By passing the regulation, the same agency who placed them on the list, have allowed them to be killed for the purpose of drilling for oil and gas. They have also violated a law, which protects the polar bears from being hunted or killed.
2. The second theory would be to challenge the by showing that the regulation is unsupported by substantial evidence.
The numbers of polar bears has diminished over the last number of years. Currently there are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the world. With 19 different subgroups of polar bears in the world, 8 were declining, 3 were stable and 1 increased. The rest of the groups were unable to be accounted for, due to lack of evidence. (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq#q2). So, the evidence clearly shows that due to the low numbers of the polar bears worldwide, it is imperative that they be protected. Some type of other means could be used to scare the polar bears and walrus’s off, so they are not harmed physically in any manner.
3. The Ultra Vires Theory
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency who is sponsoring the regulation. According to The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, its mission is to work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. How is allowing polar bears and walrus’s to be killed, by regulation, protecting them? The only ones that this regulation is protecting are the oil and gas companies that wish to look for and/or drill for gas and oil. So, by its own admission, The Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the power to allow the killings of these mammals. They are there to protect them and thus, they do not have the authority to allow others to kill them.
4. Did the agency in charge of the new regulation, properly comply with the APA requirements of notice, publication and public comment or input?
From what I can tell, the Fish and Wildlife Service has properly placed the regulation out there for public comment and has followed the proper procedures for the proposed rule. As the process goes on, they will need to insure that all proper protocols are being followed throughout all stages of the process. If they do not properly follow the rules, then it could be possible to argue that since they did not follow proper procedures, then the regulation could be overturned.
5. Is the new proposed regulation unconstitutional in any way?
From what I can tell, there are not any constitutional rights for oil and gas companies that give them the rights to kill these animals. Nor are there any constitutional rights that these mammals have to not be hunted by the oil and gas companies. The only item here that I can see that would make this regulation invalid would be that the Fish and Wildlife Service was created to protect the wildlife and this is certainly not protecting wildlife in any way.