Migratory Bird Permits; Determination That Falconry Regulations for the State of Connecticut Meet Federal Standards, 34695-34698 [05-11783]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
requirement uses that term. (See 49
U.S.C. 60131(e)(4)). PHMSA thinks that
within the context of the rules,
‘‘significant’’ has the usual meaning of
extensive or important and needs no
special definition. The term provides
the leeway needed to avoid notices of
minor changes but calls attention to
changes worth governmental review.
PHMSA does not consider this comment
to be an adverse comment because the
comment does not explain that the rules
would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a definition of significant.
Comment: DJL Services said
§§ 192.809(e) and 195.509(e), which
provide that observation of on-the-job
performance may not be the sole
method of evaluating an individual’s
qualifications, were inappropriate
because they restrict one of the more
valid methods of measuring skills. The
commenter also argued the rules imply
that sole use of a written or oral exam
is acceptable even if observation of an
individual’s performance is the best
method of evaluation.
Response: The rules in §§ 192.809(e)
and 195.509(e) parallel the statutory
requirement in 49 U.S.C. 60131(d)(1),
which restricts the use of on-the-job
performance as a sole evaluation
method. In effect, the rules do nothing
more than minimize confusion by
keeping the personnel qualification
regulations in step with the statutory
requirement. PHMSA has no discretion
to change the statutory requirement,
even if PHMSA considered it
inappropriate. Also, operators are
required to ‘‘ensure through evaluation
that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified’’ (§§ 192.805(b) and
195.505(b)). The acceptability of using
an exam as the sole evaluation method
depends on whether the exam alone is
sufficient to determine an individual’s
qualifications for the task concerned.
PHMSA does not think the restriction
on observation of on-the-job
performance is in any way related to
this acceptability decision. Because this
comment did not recognize the parallel
statutory requirement and that sole use
of an exam as an evaluation method is
governed by a separate requirement,
PHMSA considers the comment to be
insubstantial and thus not an adverse
comment.
Comment: In a further comment on
§§ 192.809(e) and 195.509(e), DJL
Services suggested that the term ‘‘onthe-job performance’’ is not universally
understood and should be defined in
the regulations.
Response: Operators who use
observation of on-the-job performance
as a method of evaluation must describe
the method in their personnel
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
qualification programs. If PHMSA or a
State authority considers an operator’s
program inadequate, it may order
changes to the program. In our
experience, this regulatory approach has
been satisfactory. It allows operators
leeway to account for variations in
covered tasks that a special definition
could restrain, while providing for
governmental oversight. At this time,
PHMSA does not see a need to adopt a
special definition of on-the-job
performance. Since this comment does
not explain that the rules would be
ineffective without a definition, PHMSA
does not consider this comment to be an
adverse comment.
Comment: Finally, DJL Services
offered general comments on criteria
PHMSA might develop to determine
covered tasks for which observation of
on-the-job performance is the best
method of evaluation. Under 49 U.S.C.
60131(d)(1), such tasks would be
exempt from the statutory restriction on
using observation of on-the-job
performance as the sole method of
evaluation. DJL Services suggested that
observation of on-the-job performance is
a suitable method for any task that
requires a skill to perform. An
additional suggestion was that for
complex tasks involving potential
hazards, such as pig launching or
receiving, observation of performance ‘‘
whether on-the-job or during simulation
‘‘should be mandatory, with limited use
of written or oral exams.
Response: PHMSA will consider these
ideas in any future deliberation on
criteria to determine those tasks for
which observation of on-the-job
performance is the best method of
evaluation. However, PHMSA does not
consider the comment to be an adverse
comment because it does not explain
that a change is needed to a rule
established by the DFR.
Therefore, this document confirms
that the DFR will go into effect on July
15, 2005.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10,
2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Acting Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety
Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–11864 Filed 6–13–05; 8:52 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34695
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
RIN 1018–AT63
Migratory Bird Permits; Determination
That Falconry Regulations for the State
of Connecticut Meet Federal Standards
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: We add the state of
Connecticut to the list of states whose
falconry laws meet or exceed Federal
falconry standards. We have reviewed
the Connecticut falconry regulations
and public comments on the proposed
rule to add Connecticut to the list of
states with approved falconry
regulations. We have concluded that the
Connecticut falconry regulations are in
compliance with the regulations
governing falconry at 50 CFR 21.28 and
21.29. This action will enable citizens to
apply for Federal and state falconry
permits and to practice falconry in
Connecticut.
DATES:
This rule is effective June 15,
2005.
The complete file for this
rule is available for public inspection,
by appointment, at the Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia
22203–1610.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 703–358–1714; Dr.
George Allen, Wildlife Biologist, 703–
358–1825; or Diane Pence, Regional
Migratory Bird Coordinator, Hadley,
Massachusetts, 413–253–8577.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why Is This Rulemaking Needed?
The need for the change to 50 CFR
21.29(k) arose from the desire of the
state of Connecticut to institute a
falconry program for the benefit of
citizens interested in the sport of
falconry. Accordingly, the state
promulgated regulations that we have
concluded meet the Federal
requirements protecting migratory birds.
The change to 50 CFR 21.29(k) is
necessary to allow persons in the state
of Connecticut to practice falconry
under the regulations the state
submitted for approval.
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
34696
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Background
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the
Federal agency with the primary
responsibility for managing migratory
birds. Our authority is based on 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). Raptors (birds of prey)
are afforded Federal protection by the
1972 amendment to the Convention for
the Protection of Migratory Birds and
Game Animals, February 7, 1936,
United States—Mexico, as amended; the
Convention between the United States
and Japan for the Protection of
Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction
and Their Environment, September 19,
1974; and the Convention Between the
United States of America and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia)
Concerning the Conservation of
Migratory Birds and Their Environment,
November 26, 1976.
The taking and possession of raptors
for falconry are strictly prohibited
except as permitted under regulations
implementing the MBTA. Raptors also
may be protected by state regulations.
Regulations governing the issuance of
permits for migratory birds are
authorized by the MBTA and
subsequent regulations. They are in title
50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts
10, 13, 21, and (for eagle falconry) 22.
Federal falconry standards contained
in 50 CFR 21.29(d) through (i) include
permit requirements, classes of permits,
examination procedures, facilities and
equipment standards, raptor marking
restrictions, and raptor taking
restrictions. Regulations in 50 CFR part
21 also provide for review and approval
of state falconry laws by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. A list of states whose
falconry laws are approved by the
Service is found in 50 CFR 21.29(k). The
practice of falconry is authorized in
those states.
On December 20, 2004, we published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(69 FR 75892) to add the state of
Connecticut to the list of states whose
falconry laws meet or exceed Federal
falconry standards. As provided in 50
CFR 21.29(a) and (c), the Director had
reviewed certified copies of the falconry
regulations adopted by the state of
Connecticut and had determined that
they meet or exceed Federal falconry
standards. Connecticut regulations also
meet or exceed all restrictions or
conditions found in 50 CFR 21.29(j),
which includes requirements on the
number, species, acquisition, and
marking of raptors.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
This rule adds the state of
Connecticut under § 21.29(k) as a state
that meets Federal falconry standards.
Inclusion of Connecticut in this list
eliminates the previous restriction that
prohibited falconry within that state.
The practice of falconry is now
authorized in Connecticut.
This rule is effective immediately.
The Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1)) allows us to do so
because this final rule relieves a
restriction that prohibited the state of
Connecticut from allowing the practice
of falconry.
What Comments on the Proposed Rule
Did We Receive?
We received 80 applicable comments
on the proposed rule from individuals
and organizations. We received no
comments from government agencies.
Fifty-one of the comments endorsed
approval of the Connecticut falconry
regulations. Thirteen of the comments
expressed opposition to the approval of
the Connecticut falconry regulations
because the writers were opposed to
falconry. None, however, addressed
whether the Connecticut regulations are
in compliance with the Federal falconry
regulations.
We received 16 comments asking that
we not approve the Connecticut
falconry regulations for reasons related
to the regulations themselves. These
comments addressed the Connecticut
regulations as more restrictive than the
Federal regulations, or they dealt with
local issues such as falconry facilities
and zoning requirements. We concluded
that these comments also failed to
address whether the Connecticut
regulations are in compliance with the
Federal falconry regulations. Issues they
raised, such as recapture of lost falconry
birds, zoning that makes construction of
outdoor falconry facilities difficult, or
the ‘‘cumbersome,’’ ‘‘difficult,’’ and
‘‘overly restrictive’’ nature of the state
regulations, are aspects of falconry
regulation that are under the governance
of the state.
Changes in the Regulations Governing
Falconry
We add the state of Connecticut to the
list of states with approved falconry
regulations that will enable citizens to
practice falconry in the state.
Regulatory Planning and Review. In
accordance with the criteria in
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
a significant regulatory action.
a. This rule will not have an annual
economic effect of $100 million or more
or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government. A cost-
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
benefit and economic analysis is not
required. This rule will affect a limited
number of potential falconers in
Connecticut.
b. This rule will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies’
actions. The rule deals solely with
governance of falconry in Connecticut.
No other Federal agency has any role in
regulating falconry.
c. This rule will not materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan
programs, or the rights and obligations
of their recipients. There are no
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs associated with the regulation
of falconry.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal
or policy issues. This rule simply adds
Connecticut to the list of states with
approved falconry regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), 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).
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.
Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. SBREFA
amended the RFA 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 RFA, and have
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because the change will merely approve
the falconry regulations for Connecticut
and allow the practice of falconry there.
This determination is based on the fact
that we are simply adding one state to
the list of states with approved falconry
regulations. This rule will have no
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities,
and no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
This rule is not a major rule under
SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
a. This rule does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. Approval of the Connecticut
regulations will have only a very small
effect on the economy. We estimate that
20 individuals would obtain falconry
permits as a result of this rule, and
many of the expenditures of those
permittees would accrue to small
businesses. The maximum number of
birds allowed a falconer is 3, so the
maximum number of birds likely to be
possessed is 60. Some birds would be
taken from the wild, but others could be
purchased. Using one of the more
expensive birds, the northern goshawk,
as an estimate, the cost to procure a
single bird is less than $5,000, which,
with an upper limit of 60 birds,
translates into $300,000. Expenditures
for building facilities would be less than
$32,000 for 60 birds, and for care and
feeding less than $60,000. These
expenditures, totaling less than
$400,000, represent an upper limit of
potential economic impact from the
addition of Connecticut to the list of
approved states.
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 falconry 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 foreignbased enterprises. Falconry is an
endeavor of private individuals. Neither
regulation nor practice of falconry
significantly affects business activities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In
accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. Falconry is an endeavor of
private individuals. Neither regulation
nor practice of falconry affects 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 is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’
Takings. In accordance with
Executive Order 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Federalism. This rule does not have
sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment
under Executive Order 13132. It will not
interfere with the state’s ability to
manage itself or its funds.
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. We
examined these regulations under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB
has approved the information collection
requirements of the Migratory Bird
Permits Program and assigned clearance
number 1018–0022, which expires 7/31/
2007. This regulation does not change or
add to the approved information
collection. Information from the
collection is used to document take of
wild raptors for use in falconry and to
document transfers of birds held for
falconry between permittees. 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 have analyzed this rule in
accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Part 516 of the Department
of the Interior Manual (DM). This rule
does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment, and does
not require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement or an
Environmental Assessment (EA). We
prepared an EA in July 1988 to support
establishment of simpler, less restrictive
Federal regulations governing the use of
most raptors in falconry. You can obtain
a copy of the EA by contacting us at the
address in the ADDRESSES section. This
rule simply adds Connecticut to the list
of states with approved falconry
regulations. In the last 5 years we have
added several states to the list of those
with approved falconry regulations.
Those additions generated few public or
agency comments. We view this action
as a routine action with precedent.
Therefore, pursuant to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s NEPA procedures,
located in the Department of the
Interior’s Manual, this action is
categorically excluded as ‘‘changes or
amendments to an approved action
when such changes have no or minor
potential environmental impact’’ (516
DM 8.5(A)(1)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship with Tribes. In accordance
with the President’s memorandum of
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34697
April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment 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 there
are no potential effects. This rule will
not interfere with the Tribes’ ability to
manage themselves or their funds or to
regulate falconry on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
(Executive Order 13211). On May 18,
2001, the President issued Executive
Order 13211 on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. Because
this rule only affects the practice of
falconry in the United States, it is not
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, and will not
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action
and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Are There Environmental
Consequences of the Action? The
environmental impacts of this action are
extremely limited.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect this
action to have discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Raptor populations. This rule does
not significantly alter the conduct of
falconry in the United States. We
believe that there only about 10
falconers or individuals interested in
being falconers in Connecticut, and take
of raptors for falconry in the state will
be prohibited by the state falconry
regulations. Therefore, this rule will
have a negligible effect on raptor
populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species.
This regulation change will not affect
threatened or endangered species in
Connecticut for the reasons set forth
below.
Is This Rule in Compliance With
Endangered Species Act Requirements?
Yes. 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 Act.’’
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.’’ The Division of
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
34698
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Threatened and Endangered Species
concurred with our finding that the
revised regulations are not likely to
adversely affect any listed or proposed
species or designated or proposed
critical habitat.
Author. The author of this rulemaking
is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Mail Stop MBSP–4107,
Arlington, Virginia 22203–1610.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
I For the reasons stated in the preamble,
we amend part 21, subpart C, subchapter
B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
§ 21.29
[Amended]
1. The authority citation for part 21
continues to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703–712; Pub. L. 106–
108; 16 U.S.C. 668a.
2. Amend § 21.29 by adding to
paragraph (k) the word ‘‘Connecticut,’’
between the words ‘‘*Colorado,’’ and
‘‘*Delaware,’’.
I
Dated: June 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 05–11783 Filed 6–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34695-34698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11783]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
RIN 1018-AT63
Migratory Bird Permits; Determination That Falconry Regulations
for the State of Connecticut Meet Federal Standards
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We add the state of Connecticut to the list of states whose
falconry laws meet or exceed Federal falconry standards. We have
reviewed the Connecticut falconry regulations and public comments on
the proposed rule to add Connecticut to the list of states with
approved falconry regulations. We have concluded that the Connecticut
falconry regulations are in compliance with the regulations governing
falconry at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.29. This action will enable citizens to
apply for Federal and state falconry permits and to practice falconry
in Connecticut.
DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, at the Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive,
Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-
1714; Dr. George Allen, Wildlife Biologist, 703-358-1825; or Diane
Pence, Regional Migratory Bird Coordinator, Hadley, Massachusetts, 413-
253-8577.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why Is This Rulemaking Needed?
The need for the change to 50 CFR 21.29(k) arose from the desire of
the state of Connecticut to institute a falconry program for the
benefit of citizens interested in the sport of falconry. Accordingly,
the state promulgated regulations that we have concluded meet the
Federal requirements protecting migratory birds. The change to 50 CFR
21.29(k) is necessary to allow persons in the state of Connecticut to
practice falconry under the regulations the state submitted for
approval.
[[Page 34696]]
Background
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with the
primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority is
based on 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). Raptors (birds of prey) are
afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention for
the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7, 1936,
United States--Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the United
States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of
Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the
Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory
Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976.
The taking and possession of raptors for falconry are strictly
prohibited except as permitted under regulations implementing the MBTA.
Raptors also may be protected by state regulations. Regulations
governing the issuance of permits for migratory birds are authorized by
the MBTA and subsequent regulations. They are in title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, parts 10, 13, 21, and (for eagle falconry) 22.
Federal falconry standards contained in 50 CFR 21.29(d) through (i)
include permit requirements, classes of permits, examination
procedures, facilities and equipment standards, raptor marking
restrictions, and raptor taking restrictions. Regulations in 50 CFR
part 21 also provide for review and approval of state falconry laws by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. A list of states whose falconry laws are
approved by the Service is found in 50 CFR 21.29(k). The practice of
falconry is authorized in those states.
On December 20, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 75892) to add the state of Connecticut to the list of
states whose falconry laws meet or exceed Federal falconry standards.
As provided in 50 CFR 21.29(a) and (c), the Director had reviewed
certified copies of the falconry regulations adopted by the state of
Connecticut and had determined that they meet or exceed Federal
falconry standards. Connecticut regulations also meet or exceed all
restrictions or conditions found in 50 CFR 21.29(j), which includes
requirements on the number, species, acquisition, and marking of
raptors.
This rule adds the state of Connecticut under Sec. 21.29(k) as a
state that meets Federal falconry standards. Inclusion of Connecticut
in this list eliminates the previous restriction that prohibited
falconry within that state. The practice of falconry is now authorized
in Connecticut.
This rule is effective immediately. The Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)) allows us to do so because this final rule
relieves a restriction that prohibited the state of Connecticut from
allowing the practice of falconry.
What Comments on the Proposed Rule Did We Receive?
We received 80 applicable comments on the proposed rule from
individuals and organizations. We received no comments from government
agencies. Fifty-one of the comments endorsed approval of the
Connecticut falconry regulations. Thirteen of the comments expressed
opposition to the approval of the Connecticut falconry regulations
because the writers were opposed to falconry. None, however, addressed
whether the Connecticut regulations are in compliance with the Federal
falconry regulations.
We received 16 comments asking that we not approve the Connecticut
falconry regulations for reasons related to the regulations themselves.
These comments addressed the Connecticut regulations as more
restrictive than the Federal regulations, or they dealt with local
issues such as falconry facilities and zoning requirements. We
concluded that these comments also failed to address whether the
Connecticut regulations are in compliance with the Federal falconry
regulations. Issues they raised, such as recapture of lost falconry
birds, zoning that makes construction of outdoor falconry facilities
difficult, or the ``cumbersome,'' ``difficult,'' and ``overly
restrictive'' nature of the state regulations, are aspects of falconry
regulation that are under the governance of the state.
Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry
We add the state of Connecticut to the list of states with approved
falconry regulations that will enable citizens to practice falconry in
the state.
Regulatory Planning and Review. In accordance with the criteria in
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory
action.
a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity,
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and
economic analysis is not required. This rule will affect a limited
number of potential falconers in Connecticut.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. The rule deals solely with governance of falconry in
Connecticut. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating
falconry.
c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
associated with the regulation of falconry.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule
simply adds Connecticut to the list of states with approved falconry
regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), 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).
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.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. SBREFA amended
the RFA 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 RFA, and have determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the change will merely approve the falconry regulations for
Connecticut and allow the practice of falconry there. This
determination is based on the fact that we are simply adding one state
to the list of states with approved falconry regulations. This rule
will have no significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities, and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 34697]]
a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Approval of the Connecticut regulations will have only
a very small effect on the economy. We estimate that 20 individuals
would obtain falconry permits as a result of this rule, and many of the
expenditures of those permittees would accrue to small businesses. The
maximum number of birds allowed a falconer is 3, so the maximum number
of birds likely to be possessed is 60. Some birds would be taken from
the wild, but others could be purchased. Using one of the more
expensive birds, the northern goshawk, as an estimate, the cost to
procure a single bird is less than $5,000, which, with an upper limit
of 60 birds, translates into $300,000. Expenditures for building
facilities would be less than $32,000 for 60 birds, and for care and
feeding less than $60,000. These expenditures, totaling less than
$400,000, represent an upper limit of potential economic impact from
the addition of Connecticut to the list of approved states.
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 falconry 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. Falconry is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither
regulation nor practice of falconry significantly affects business
activities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Falconry
is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither regulation nor practice
of falconry affects 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 is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
Takings. In accordance with Executive Order 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 Executive Order
13132. It will not interfere with the state's ability to manage itself
or its funds.
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. We examined these regulations under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Permits Program and
assigned clearance number 1018-0022, which expires 7/31/2007. This
regulation does not change or add to the approved information
collection. Information from the collection is used to document take of
wild raptors for use in falconry and to document transfers of birds
held for falconry between permittees. 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 have analyzed this rule in
accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Part 516 of the Department of the Interior Manual (DM). This
rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment, and does not require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental
Assessment (EA). We prepared an EA in July 1988 to support
establishment of simpler, less restrictive Federal regulations
governing the use of most raptors in falconry. You can obtain a copy of
the EA by contacting us at the address in the ADDRESSES section. This
rule simply adds Connecticut to the list of states with approved
falconry regulations. In the last 5 years we have added several states
to the list of those with approved falconry regulations. Those
additions generated few public or agency comments. We view this action
as a routine action with precedent. Therefore, pursuant to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's NEPA procedures, located in the Department
of the Interior's Manual, this action is categorically excluded as
``changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes have no
or minor potential environmental impact'' (516 DM 8.5(A)(1)).
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 there are no potential effects. This rule will not
interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds
or to regulate falconry on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211). On May
18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only
affects the practice of falconry in the United States, it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and will not
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Are There Environmental Consequences of the Action? The
environmental impacts of this action are extremely limited.
Socioeconomic. We do not expect this action to have discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Raptor populations. This rule does not significantly alter the
conduct of falconry in the United States. We believe that there only
about 10 falconers or individuals interested in being falconers in
Connecticut, and take of raptors for falconry in the state will be
prohibited by the state falconry regulations. Therefore, this rule will
have a negligible effect on raptor populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species. This regulation change will not
affect threatened or endangered species in Connecticut for the reasons
set forth below.
Is This Rule in Compliance With Endangered Species Act
Requirements? Yes. 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
Act.'' 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.'' The Division of
[[Page 34698]]
Threatened and Endangered Species concurred with our finding that the
revised regulations are not likely to adversely affect any listed or
proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat.
Author. The author of this rulemaking is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-
1610.
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 part 21, subpart C,
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
Sec. 21.29 [Amended]
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Pub. L. 106-108; 16 U.S.C. 668a.
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.29 by adding to paragraph (k) the word
``Connecticut,'' between the words ``*Colorado,'' and ``*Delaware,''.
Dated: June 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-11783 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
