Removing Regulations Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 24862-24864 [2010-10604]
Download as PDF
24862
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes to the document
that were made in response to
comments received by EPA during that
review have been documented in the
docket as required by the Executive
Order.
Since this document does not impose
or propose any requirements, and
instead seeks comments and suggestions
for the Agency to consider in possibly
developing a subsequent proposed rule,
the various other review requirements
that apply when an agency imposes
requirements do not apply to this
action. Nevertheless, as part of your
comments on this document, you may
include any comments or information
that you have regarding the various
other review requirements.
In particular, EPA is interested in any
information that would help the Agency
to assess the potential impact of a rule
on small entities pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider
voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note);
to consider environmental health or
safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or
to consider human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations pursuant to
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
EPA specifically requests information
and data to facilitate its analyses in the
following two areas:
a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly
interested in receiving comments and
information about the various characteristics
of potentially impacted small entities that
would facilitate the Agency’s evaluation of
the number of firms that might experience an
impact from a rulemaking in this area, as
well as an assessment of the potential size of
that impact on small entities. In commenting
or providing information about small entities
that might be impacted by a rulemaking in
this area, please note that the phrase ‘‘small
entities’’ encompasses small businesses,
small governmental jurisdictions, and small
organizations. In the analysis the Agency
expects to perform under the RFA, these
entities are specifically defined in sections
601(3)–(5) of the RFA. The definitions for
‘‘small business’’ are codified in the Small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 May 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations
at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small
business by category of business using the
NAICS–Codes. (https://www.sba.gov/
regulations/121/201.htm) Small business
default definitions can be found on SBA’s
internet site at https://www.sba.gov/size/
indextableofsize.html. A ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is ‘‘a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than
50,000.’’ A ‘‘small organization’’ is any ‘‘notfor-profit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in
its field.’’
b. Environmental Justice. EPA is
particularly interested in receiving comment
and information about potential impacts—
both benefits and costs—on the human
health or environmental conditions in
minority or low-income populations. Such
information would facilitate the Agency’s
consideration of environmental justice
during the development of the proposed rule.
This information will be used in the
identification and evaluation of options
for the proposed rule, and will inform
the analyses that the Agency intends to
prepare for the proposed rule. Any
comments on this topic should be
submitted to the Agency in the manner
specified under ADDRESSES. The Agency
will consider such comments during the
development of any subsequent
proposed rule as it takes appropriate
steps to address any applicable
requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745
Environmental protection, Hazardous
substance, Lead poisoning, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–10097 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 83
[Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2010–0009]
[91400–5110–POLI–7B; 91400–9410–POLI–
7B]
RIN 1018-AX00
Removing Regulations Implementing
the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove our regulations implementing
the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of 1980. The Act authorized financial
and technical assistance to States to
design conservation plans and programs
to benefit nongame species; however,
funds never became available to carry
out the Act, and we do not expect funds
to become available in the future.
DATES: We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before July
6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2010–0009.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
WSR–2010–0009; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all public comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program, Division of Policy
and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 703–358–2156.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Service manages or comanages 54
financial assistance programs. Our
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Program manages, in whole or in part,
19 of these programs. We implement
some of these programs via regulations
in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), particularly in
subchapter F ‘‘Financial Assistance—
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Program,’’ which currently includes
parts 80 through 86.
The regulations at part 83 implement
the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901–2911). This act
authorized the Service to give financial
and technical assistance to States and
other eligible jurisdictions to design
conservation plans and programs to
benefit nongame species. The
regulations tell the fish and wildlife
agencies of the 50 States, the
Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, the District of
Columbia, and the territories of Guam,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa how they can take part in this
grant program. However, neither the
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act nor
any subsequent legislation established a
continuing source of funds for this grant
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules
program, nor have annual
Appropriations Acts provided any funds
for it. In 1984, the Service’s Western
Energy and Land Use Team prepared a
document identifying potential funding
sources, but none of these options were
adopted.
Congress has appropriated funds in
recent years for State conservation
planning and programs to benefit
nongame species, but none of these
grant programs have been under the
authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act. Instead, Congress
made funds available through the
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
grant program in 2001 and—during each
year since 2002—the State Wildlife
Grants program. Based on this 30–year
record, we do not expect that the grant
program authorized by the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 will
receive any funding, so we propose to
remove its implementing regulations.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an
address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section. Finally, we will not consider
hand-delivered comments that we do
not receive, or mailed comments that
are not postmarked, by the date
specified in the DATES section.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment – including your
personal identifying information – may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 May 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the methods listed in the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs with unclear
writing, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under E.O. 12866. OMB bases
its determination on 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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires an agency to consider the
impact of proposed rules on small
entities, i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions. If there is a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the agency
must perform a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. This is not required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act
to require Federal agencies to state the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
We are removing a rule governing an
unfunded grant program. Consequently,
we certify that the removal would not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities; a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required.
In addition, this proposed rule is not
a major rule under SBREFA and would
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it does not:
a. Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24863
b. Cause a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers; individual
industries; Federal, State, or local
government agencies; or geographic
regions.
c. Would 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) establishes
requirements for Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. The
Act requires each Federal agency, to the
extent permitted by law, to prepare a
written assessment of the effects of a
proposed rule with Federal mandates
that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any 1 year. We have
determined the following under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act:
a. As discussed in the determination
for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
b. The regulation does not require a
small government agency plan or any
other requirement for expenditure of
local funds.
c. There are no mandated costs
associated with the proposed rule.
d. This proposed rule would 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
This proposed rule would not have
significant takings implications under
E.O. 12630 because it would not have a
provision for taking private property.
Therefore, a takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism
This proposed rule would not have
sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment
under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere
with the States’ ability to manage
themselves or their funds.
Civil Justice Reform
The Office of the Solicitor has
determined under E.O. 12988 that the
rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
24864
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain
any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not
impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
We have analyzed this rule under the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of the
Departmental Manual (DM). This rule
does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. An
environmental impact statement/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 May 05, 2010
Jkt 220001
assessment is not required because this
proposed action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion for administrative
changes provided in 516 DM 2,
Appendix 1, section 1.10.
actions. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and
would not affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Government-to-Government
Relationship with Tribes
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 83
We have evaluated potential effects
on federally recognized Indian tribes
under the President’s memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2. We
have determined that there are no
potential effects. This proposed rule
would not interfere with the tribes’
ability to manage themselves or their
funds.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use and requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Fish, Grant programs—natural
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, under the authority of 16
U.S.C. 2901, we propose to amend
subchapter F of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Part 83—[Removed and Reserved]
Remove and reserve part 83,
consisting of §§ 83.1 through 83.21.
Dated: April 6, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010–10604 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24862-24864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10604]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 83
[Docket No. FWS-R9-WSR-2010-0009]
[91400-5110-POLI-7B; 91400-9410-POLI-7B]
RIN 1018-AX00
Removing Regulations Implementing the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove our regulations implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1980. The Act authorized financial and technical assistance to
States to design conservation plans and programs to benefit nongame
species; however, funds never became available to carry out the Act,
and we do not expect funds to become available in the future.
DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before
July 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-
WSR-2010-0009.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-WSR-2010-0009; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all public
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 703-358-2156.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Service manages or comanages 54 financial assistance programs.
Our Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program manages, in whole or in
part, 19 of these programs. We implement some of these programs via
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
particularly in subchapter F ``Financial Assistance--Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Program,'' which currently includes parts 80 through
86.
The regulations at part 83 implement the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911). This act authorized the
Service to give financial and technical assistance to States and other
eligible jurisdictions to design conservation plans and programs to
benefit nongame species. The regulations tell the fish and wildlife
agencies of the 50 States, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, and the territories
of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa how they can take
part in this grant program. However, neither the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act nor any subsequent legislation established a
continuing source of funds for this grant
[[Page 24863]]
program, nor have annual Appropriations Acts provided any funds for it.
In 1984, the Service's Western Energy and Land Use Team prepared a
document identifying potential funding sources, but none of these
options were adopted.
Congress has appropriated funds in recent years for State
conservation planning and programs to benefit nongame species, but none
of these grant programs have been under the authority of the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act. Instead, Congress made funds available
through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration grant program in 2001
and--during each year since 2002--the State Wildlife Grants program.
Based on this 30-year record, we do not expect that the grant program
authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 will
receive any funding, so we propose to remove its implementing
regulations.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment - including your personal identifying
information - may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Required Determinations
Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ``ADDRESSES'' section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs with unclear writing, which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under E.O.
12866. OMB bases its determination on 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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to consider the
impact of proposed rules on small entities, i.e., small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. If there is a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the agency must perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This is not
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to state the
factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We are removing a rule governing an unfunded grant program.
Consequently, we certify that the removal would not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities; a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required.
In addition, this proposed rule is not a major rule under SBREFA
and would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it does not:
a. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers;
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or
geographic regions.
c. Would 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. The Act requires each Federal agency, to the extent
permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of a
proposed rule with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year. We have determined the following under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act:
a. As discussed in the determination for the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on
a substantial number of small entities.
b. The regulation does not require a small government agency plan
or any other requirement for expenditure of local funds.
c. There are no mandated costs associated with the proposed rule.
d. This proposed rule would 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
This proposed rule would not have significant takings implications
under E.O. 12630 because it would not have a provision for taking
private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not
required.
Federalism
This proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to
warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It
would not interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or
their funds.
Civil Justice Reform
The Office of the Solicitor has determined under E.O. 12988 that
the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets
the
[[Page 24864]]
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of the Departmental Manual
(DM). This rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An
environmental impact statement/assessment is not required because this
proposed action qualifies for the categorical exclusion for
administrative changes provided in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, section 1.10.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian
tribes under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2. We have
determined that there are no potential effects. This proposed rule
would not interfere with the tribes' ability to manage themselves or
their funds.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, and use and requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This
rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and would
not affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 83
Fish, Grant programs--natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of
16 U.S.C. 2901, we propose to amend subchapter F of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Part 83--[Removed and Reserved]
Remove and reserve part 83, consisting of Sec. Sec. 83.1 through
83.21.
Dated: April 6, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-10604 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S