[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29917-29919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12882]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[FWS-R9-MB-2010-0020; 91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AX09
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing
Migratory Bird Rehabilitation
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule
in the Federal Register on October 27, 2003, to create regulations
governing migratory bird rehabilitation in the United States. Before
creation of those regulations, rehabilitators were required to obtain a
special purpose permit to engage in rehabilitation activities. The
language in the final paragraph of the 2003 regulations dealt with the
transition of special purpose permit holders to operation under the new
rehabilitation permit regulations. This paragraph is no longer
relevant, so we remove it from the regulation.
DATES: This regulations change will be effective on May 28, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-
1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 27, 2003, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (68 FR 61123) to establish regulations for the issuance of
permits to rehabilitate migratory birds in the United States. These
regulations are at 50 CFR 21.31. Prior to issuance of the
rehabilitation permit rule, migratory bird rehabilitators were required
to obtain a special use permit to engage in rehabilitation activities.
The last paragraph in the rehabilitation permit rule dealt with how we
would handle issuing permits during the transition to the (then) new
regulations. Since publication of that rule, all persons interested in
having a permit to rehabilitate migratory birds must have transitioned
from a special purpose permit to a rehabilitation permit. Because
special purpose permits are valid for only 3 years, all of those
permits in existence in 2003 have expired by now.
Therefore, the text in 50 CFR 21.31(i), ``Will I need to apply for
a new permit under this section if I already have a special purpose
permit to rehabilitate birds, issued under Sec. 21.27 (Special purpose
permits)?'' is no longer needed. With this final rule, our only change
to the rehabilitation regulations is to remove all of the language
under paragraph (i). This change is simply a ministerial administrative
action to remove text that is no longer necessary from the Code of
Federal Regulations and, therefore, will have no substantive effect on
the general public.
Administrative Procedure
In accordance with section 553 (b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), we are issuing this final rule
without prior opportunity for public comment because public notice and
comment procedures are unnecessary. We find that good cause exists to
delete paragraph (i) of section 21.31 without going through the public-
notice-and-comment procedure because the transition language is
anachronistic and no public input received through an open comment
period could justify retention of this paragraph. For the same reasons
stated above, we find that there is good cause to have this final rule
take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register (5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under Executive Order 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 (that
is, 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. We have examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and have determined that this
[[Page 29918]]
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the change in the regulation is simply
to eliminate language that is no longer needed. Consequently, we
certify that because this rule will not have a significant economic
effect on any entity, let alone 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)).
It will not have a significant economic 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. There are no costs to permittees or any other part of
the economy associated with these regulation changes.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. The practice of migratory bird
rehabilitation does not significantly affect costs or prices in any
sector of the economy.
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 foreign-based
enterprises. Neither regulation nor practice of migratory bird
rehabilitation significantly affects business activities.
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. Neither
regulation nor practice of migratory bird rehabilitation affects small
government activities.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year; i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. No revisions of State,
tribal, or territorial regulations will be necessary.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the 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.
Federalism
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It will not
interfere with the States' abilities to manage themselves or their
funds. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from the
regulation of migratory bird rehabilitation.
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 the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the
Migratory Bird Permits Program and assigned OMB control number 1018-
0022, which expires November 30, 2010. This rule does not change the
approved information collection. Information from the collection is
used to ensure that rehabilitation permit applicants are qualified and
that their activities are documented. A Federal 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 evaluated the environmental impacts of the change to the
regulations, and determined that, within the spirit and intent of the
Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders,
and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, the regulatory
change does not have a significant effect on the human environment.
Under the guidance in Appendix 1 of the Department of the Interior
Manual at 516 DM 8, we conclude that the regulatory change is
categorically excluded because it has ``no or minor potential
environmental impact'' (516 DM 8.5(A)(1)). No more comprehensive NEPA
analysis of the regulations change is 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), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes
and have determined that this rule will not interfere with tribes'
ability to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory
bird rehabilitation on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only
affects the practice of migratory bird rehabilitation in the United
States, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and
will not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. No
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
This action has no environmental or socioeconomic impacts.
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)). This regulatory change
will not affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats in
the United States.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend subpart C of part 21,
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C.
703-12); Public Law 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub.
L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
Sec. 21.31 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.31 by removing paragraph (i).
[[Page 29919]]
Dated: May 17, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-12882 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P