Migratory Bird Permits; States Delegated Falconry Permitting Authority, 64638-64640 [E9-29060]

Download as PDF 64638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations (2) Each other concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement; (3) The joint venture meets the requirements of paragraph 7 of the explanation of Affiliates in 19.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and (4) The joint venture meets the requirements of 13 CFR 125.15(b), except that the principal company may be a veteranowned small business concern or a servicedisabled veteran-owned small business concern. (e) Any veteran-owned small business concern (non-manufacturer) must meet the requirements in 19.102(f) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to receive a benefit under this program. (End of Clause) 39. Add section 852.219–71 to read as follows: ■ 852.219–71 ´ ´ VA Mentor-Protege Program. As prescribed in 819.7115(a), insert the following clause: WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Jkt 220001 852.219–72 Evaluation Factor for ´ ´ Participation in the VA Mentor-Protege Program. As prescribed in 819.7115(b), insert the following clause: Evaluation Factor for Participation in the ´ ´ VA Mentor-Protege Program (DEC2009) This solicitation contains an evaluation factor or sub-factor regarding participation in ´ ´ the VA Mentor-Protege Program. In order to receive credit under the evaluation factor or sub-factor, the offeror must provide with its proposal a copy of a signed letter issued by the VA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization approving the offeror’s ´ ´ Mentor-Protege Agreement. (End of Clause) 41. Add section 852.228–72 to read as follows: (DEC2009) (a) Large businesses are encouraged to ´ ´ participate in the VA Mentor-Protege Program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible servicedisabled veteran-owned small businesses and veteran-owned small businesses to enhance the small businesses’ capabilities and increase their participation as VA prime contractors and as subcontractors. (b) The program consists of: (1) Mentor firms, which are contractors capable of providing developmental assistance; ´ ´ (2) Protege firms, which are servicedisabled veteran-owned small business concerns or veteran-owned small business concerns; and ´ ´ (3) Mentor-Protege Agreements approved by the VA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. (c) Mentor participation in the program means providing business developmental ´ ´ assistance to aid proteges in developing the requisite expertise to effectively compete for and successfully perform VA prime contracts and subcontracts. (d) Large business prime contractors ´ ´ serving as mentors in the VA Mentor-Protege Program are eligible for an incentive for subcontracting plan credit. VA will recognize the costs incurred by a mentor firm in ´ ´ providing assistance to a protege firm and apply those costs for purposes of determining whether the mentor firm attains its subcontracting plan participation goals under a VA contract. The amount of credit given to ´ ´ a mentor firm for these protege developmental assistance costs shall be calculated on a dollar-for-dollar basis and reported by the large business prime contractor via the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). (e) Contractors interested in participating in the program are encouraged to contact the VA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization for more information. 14:57 Dec 07, 2009 40. Add section 852.219–72 to read as follows: ■ ■ ´ ´ VA Mentor-Protege Program VerDate Nov<24>2008 (End of Clause) 852.228–72 Assisting Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses in Obtaining Bonds. As prescribed in 828.106–71, insert the following clause: Assisting Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses in Obtaining Bonds (DEC2009) Prime contractors are encouraged to assist service-disabled veteran-owned and veteranowned small business potential subcontractors in obtaining bonding, when required. Mentor firms are encouraged to ´ ´ assist protege firms under VA’s Mentor´ ´ Protege Program in obtaining acceptable bid, payment, and performance bonds, when required, as a prime contractor under a solicitation or contract and in obtaining any required bonds under subcontracts. [FR Doc. E9–28461 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 21 [FWS–R9–MB–2009–0071; 91200–1231– 9BPP] RIN 1018–AW98 Migratory Bird Permits; States Delegated Falconry Permitting Authority AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Texas, and Utah have requested that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, delegate permitting for falconry to the State, as provided under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.29. We have reviewed regulations and supporting materials provided by the States, and have concluded that their regulations comply with the Federal regulations. We change the falconry regulations accordingly. DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 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 We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule in the Federal Register on October 8, 2008, to revise our regulations governing falconry in the United States (50 CFR 21.29). The regulations provide that, when a State meets the requirements for operating under the regulations, falconry permitting must be delegated to the State. The States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah have submitted revised falconry regulations and supporting materials, and have requested to be allowed to operate under the revised Federal regulations. We have reviewed the States’ regulations and determined that they meet the requirements of 50 CFR 21.29(b). According to the regulations at § 21.29(b)(4), we must issue a rule to add the State to the list at § 21.29(b)(10) of approved States with a falconry program. We change the Federal regulations accordingly. Therefore, a Federal permit will no longer be required to practice falconry in the States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah beginning January 1, 2010. Administrative Procedure In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), we are issuing this final rule without prior opportunity for public comment. Under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.29(b)(1)(ii), the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must determine if a State, tribal, or territorial falconry permitting program meets Federal requirements. When the Director makes this determination, the Service is required by regulations at 50 CFR 21.29(b)(4) to publish a rule in the Federal Register adding the State, tribe, or territory to the list of those approved for allowing the practice of falconry. On January 1st of the calendar year following publication of the rule, the E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM 08DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations Service will terminate Federal falconry permitting in any State certified under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.29. This is a ministerial and non-discretionary action that must be enacted in short order to enable the subject States to assume all responsibilities of falconry permitting by January 1, 2010, the effective date of this regulatory amendment. Further, the relevant regulation at 50 CFR 21.29 governing the transfer of permitting authority to these States has already been subject to public notice and comment procedures. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we did not publish a proposed rule in regard to this rulemaking action because, for good cause as stated above, we found prior public notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary. 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:57 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule delegates authority to States that have requested it, and those States have already changed their falconry regulations. This rule does not change falconers’ costs for practicing their sport, nor does it affect businesses that provide equipment or supplies for falconry. Consequently, 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)). 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 this regulations change. 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.), we have determined the following: a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small governments in a negative way. A small government agency plan is not required. The four States affected by this rule applied for the authority to issue permits for the practice of falconry. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 64639 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. The States being delegated authority to issue permits to conduct falconry have requested that authority. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from the regulation of falconry. 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 regulation change does not add to the approved information collection. Information from the collection is used to document take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and to document transfers of raptors 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 evaluated the environmental impacts of the changes to these regulations, and determined that this rule does not have any environmental impacts. 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, we determined that these regulatory changes do 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 2, we conclude that the regulatory changes are categorically excluded because they ‘‘have no or minor potential environmental impact’’ E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM 08DER1 64640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations (516 DM 2, Appendix 1A(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 falconry 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 falconry 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. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Socioeconomic. We do not expect the proposed action to have discernible socioeconomic impacts. VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:57 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 220001 Raptor populations. This rule will not change the effects of falconry on raptor populations. We have reviewed and approved the State regulations. Endangered and Threatened Species. This rule does not change protections for endangered and threatened species. 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)). Delegating falconry permitting authority to States with approved programs 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. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 21 of subpart C, 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: .0 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. § 21.29 [Amended] 2. Amend § 21.29 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(10)(i), remove the brackets and the words ‘‘[—States, tribes, and territories in compliance with these revised regulations—]’’ and add in their place the words ‘‘Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Utah,’’ and ■ b. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), remove the words ‘‘Mississippi,’’ ‘‘Montana,’’ ‘‘Oklahoma,’’ ‘‘Pennsylvania,’’ ‘‘Texas,’’ and ‘‘Utah’’. ■ ■ Dated: November 20, 2009. Thomas L. Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E9–29060 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM 08DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64638-64640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29060]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

[FWS-R9-MB-2009-0071; 91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AW98


Migratory Bird Permits; States Delegated Falconry Permitting 
Authority

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, and Utah have requested that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, delegate permitting for falconry to the State, as provided 
under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.29. We have reviewed regulations and 
supporting materials provided by the States, and have concluded that 
their regulations comply with the Federal regulations. We change the 
falconry regulations accordingly.

DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 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

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule in 
the Federal Register on October 8, 2008, to revise our regulations 
governing falconry in the United States (50 CFR 21.29). The regulations 
provide that, when a State meets the requirements for operating under 
the regulations, falconry permitting must be delegated to the State. 
The States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and 
Utah have submitted revised falconry regulations and supporting 
materials, and have requested to be allowed to operate under the 
revised Federal regulations. We have reviewed the States' regulations 
and determined that they meet the requirements of 50 CFR 21.29(b). 
According to the regulations at Sec.  21.29(b)(4), we must issue a rule 
to add the State to the list at Sec.  21.29(b)(10) of approved States 
with a falconry program. We change the Federal regulations accordingly. 
Therefore, a Federal permit will no longer be required to practice 
falconry in the States of Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, and Utah beginning January 1, 2010.

Administrative Procedure

    In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), we are issuing this final rule without prior 
opportunity for public comment. Under the regulations at 50 CFR 
21.29(b)(1)(ii), the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
must determine if a State, tribal, or territorial falconry permitting 
program meets Federal requirements. When the Director makes this 
determination, the Service is required by regulations at 50 CFR 
21.29(b)(4) to publish a rule in the Federal Register adding the State, 
tribe, or territory to the list of those approved for allowing the 
practice of falconry. On January 1st of the calendar year following 
publication of the rule, the

[[Page 64639]]

Service will terminate Federal falconry permitting in any State 
certified under the regulations at 50 CFR 21.29. This is a ministerial 
and non-discretionary action that must be enacted in short order to 
enable the subject States to assume all responsibilities of falconry 
permitting by January 1, 2010, the effective date of this regulatory 
amendment. Further, the relevant regulation at 50 CFR 21.29 governing 
the transfer of permitting authority to these States has already been 
subject to public notice and comment procedures. Therefore, in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we did not publish a proposed 
rule in regard to this rulemaking action because, for good cause as 
stated above, we found prior public notice and comment procedures to be 
unnecessary.

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 action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This rule delegates authority to States that have requested it, and 
those States have already changed their falconry regulations. This rule 
does not change falconers' costs for practicing their sport, nor does 
it affect businesses that provide equipment or supplies for falconry.
    Consequently, 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)). 
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 this regulations change.
    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.), we have determined the following:
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments in a negative way. A small government agency plan is not 
required. The four States affected by this rule applied for the 
authority to issue permits for the practice of falconry.
    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.

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. The States 
being delegated authority to issue permits to conduct falconry have 
requested that authority. No significant economic impacts are expected 
to result from the regulation of falconry.

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 regulation change does not 
add to the approved information collection. Information from the 
collection is used to document take of raptors from the wild for use in 
falconry and to document transfers of raptors 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 evaluated the environmental impacts of the changes to these 
regulations, and determined that this rule does not have any 
environmental impacts. 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, we determined that 
these regulatory changes do 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 2, we conclude that the regulatory changes are 
categorically excluded because they ``have no or minor potential 
environmental impact''

[[Page 64640]]

(516 DM 2, Appendix 1A(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 falconry 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 falconry 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. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action

    Socioeconomic. We do not expect the proposed action to have 
discernible socioeconomic impacts.
    Raptor populations. This rule will not change the effects of 
falconry on raptor populations. We have reviewed and approved the State 
regulations.
    Endangered and Threatened Species. This rule does not change 
protections for endangered and threatened species.

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)). Delegating falconry 
permitting authority to States with approved programs 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 part 21 of subpart C, 
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: .0 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.


Sec.  21.29  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  21.29 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(10)(i), remove the brackets and the words ``[--
States, tribes, and territories in compliance with these revised 
regulations--]'' and add in their place the words ``Mississippi, 
Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Utah,'' and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), remove the words ``Mississippi,'' 
``Montana,'' ``Oklahoma,'' ``Pennsylvania,'' ``Texas,'' and ``Utah''.

    Dated: November 20, 2009.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E9-29060 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.