75892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are publishing a direct final notice of 

partial deletion of the Uravan 

Superfund Site without prior notice of 

intent to delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

partial deletion in the preamble to the 

direct final deletion. If we receive no 

adverse comment(s) on this notice of 

intent to partially delete or the direct 

final notice of partial deletion, we will 

not take further action on this notice of 

intent to delete. If we receive adverse 

comment(s), we will withdraw the 

direct final notice of partial deletion and 

it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final deletion 

notice based on this notice of intent to 

partially delete. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this notice 

of intent to partially delete. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. For additional information, 

see the direct final notice of deletion 

which is located in the rules section of 

this Federal Register.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site 

must be received by January 19, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to: Rob Henneke, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. EPA (8OC–PI), 999 18th Street, 

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, USA 

80202, (henneke.rob@epa.gov), (303) 

312–6734, or toll free 1–800–227–8917, 

extension 6734.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Thomas, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA (8ERP–SR), 999 18th 

Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 

USA 80202 (thomas.rebecca@epa.gov), 

(303) 312–6552, or toll free 1–800–227–

8917, extension 6552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, see the Direct 

Final Notice of Deletion which is 

located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

Information Repository: A repository 

has been established to provide detailed 

information concerning this decision at 

the following address: U.S. EPA Region 

8 Records Center, 999 18th Street, Suite 

300, Denver, Colorado, USA 80202, 

(303) 312–6473. Hours: M–F, 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental Protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: December 6, 2004. 

Max Dodson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 04–27550 Filed 12–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

RIN 1018–AT63 

Migratory Bird Permits; Determination 

That the State of Connecticut Meets 

Federal Falconry Standards

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We propose to 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 have determined that 

they are in compliance with the 

regulations governing falconry. This 

action will enable citizens to apply for 

Federal and State falconry permits and 

to practice falconry in Connecticut.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed rule no later than January 

19, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1018–AT63, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http://

migratorybirds.fws.gov. Follow the links 

to submit a comment. 

• E-mail: connfalconryregs@fws.gov.

• Fax: 703–358–2217. 

• Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Mail Stop MBSP–4107, 

Arlington, Virginia 22203–1610. You 

may inspect comments during normal 

business hours at the same address. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 

22203–1610. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1018–AT63 at the 

beginning. All comments received, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be available for public 

inspection at the above (‘‘Hand 

Delivery/Courier’’) address. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document.

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: 

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. 

Regulations in 50 CFR part 21 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. 

As provided in 50 CFR 21.29(a) and (c), 

the Director has reviewed certified 

copies of the falconry regulations 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75893

adopted by the State of Connecticut and 

has determined that they meet or exceed 

Federal falconry standards. 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. Connecticut regulations 

also meet or exceed all restrictions or 

conditions found in 50 CFR 21.29(j), 

which include requirements on the 

number, species, acquisition, and 

marking of raptors. Therefore, we are 

proposing that the State of Connecticut 

be listed under § 21.29(k) as a State that 

meets Federal falconry standards. 

Inclusion of Connecticut in this list 

would eliminate the current restriction 

that prohibits falconry in that State. 

Why Is This Rulemaking Needed? 

The need for the proposed changes 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 proposed changes to 50 CFR 

21.29(k) are necessary to allow persons 

in the State of Connecticut to practice 

falconry under the regulations the State 

submitted for approval. 

Changes in the Regulations Governing 

Falconry 

We propose to add the State of 

Connecticut to the list of States with 

approved falconry regulations that will 

enable citizens to practice falconry in 

the State. 

Clarity of This Regulation. Executive 

Order 12866 requires each agency to 

write regulations that are easy to 

understand. We invite your comments 

on how to make this rule easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: (1) Are 

the requirements in the rule clearly 

stated? (2) Does the rule contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the rule (grouping and order 

of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’

appears in bold type and is preceded by 

the symbol ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered 

heading; for example, ‘‘§ 21.29 Falconry 

standards and falconry permitting.’’) (5) 

Does the description of the rule in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

the preamble help you to understand 

the proposed rule? What else could we 

do to make the rule easier to 

understand?

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand to: Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You also may email comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

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 costbenefit 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 

(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 Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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). 

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 by a falconer is three, 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.). 

75894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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, i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

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 

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 five 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, the action is 

categorically excluded under 

Department of the Interior NEPA 

procedures as an ‘‘amendment to an 

approved action when such changes 

have no or minor potential 

environmental impact’’ (516 DM 6, 

Appendix 1.4 (A)(1)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes. In accordance 

with the President’s memorandum of 

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 Proposed 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.

The 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 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

concurred with our finding that the 

revised regulations will not affect listed 

species. 

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.

Public Participation. You may submit 

written comments on this rule to the 

location identified in the ADDRESSES

section, or you may submit electronic 

comments to any of the electronic 

comments addresses listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We must receive 

your comments before the date listed in 

the DATES section. All comments will 

become part of the Administrative 

Record for the review of the approval. 

When submitting electronic or written 

comments, refer to the file number RIN 

1018–AT63. 

When submitting your electronic 

comment, please include your name and 

return address in your message, identify 

it as comments on the falconry 

regulations change, and submit your 

message as an ASCII file. Do not use 

special characters or any encryption. If 

you do not receive a confirmation from 

the system that we have received your 

electronic comments, you can contact us 

directly at 703–358–1714. 

When submitting written comments, 

please include your name and return 

address in your letter and identify it as 

comments on the falconry regulations 

change. To facilitate our compilation of 

the Administrative Record for this 

action, you must submit written 

comments on 81⁄2 inch by 11 inch paper. 

All comments on the proposed rule 

will be available for public inspection 

during normal business hours at Room 

4091 at the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75895

4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 

Virginia 22203–1610. The complete file 

for this proposed rule is available, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the same address. You may call 

703–358–1825 to make an appointment 

to view the files. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. An 

individual respondent may request that 

we withhold his or her home address 

from the rulemaking record, which we 

will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

We will not consider anonymous 

comments.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we propose to 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 

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.

§ 21.29 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 21.29 by adding to 

paragraph (k) the word ‘‘Connecticut,’’

between the words ‘‘*Colorado,’’ and 

‘‘*Delaware,’’.

Dated: December 10, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–27775 Filed 12–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P