24862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small 

business by category of business using the 

NAICS–Codes. (http://www.sba.gov/

regulations/121/201.htm) Small business 

default definitions can be found on SBA’s 

internet site at http://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 

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: http:// 

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 http:// 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 

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-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 

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 §§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS